Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2010

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log

January 2010 edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [1].

Thomas Baker (aviator) edit

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. Article on an Australian soldier, aviator and flying ace of the First World War whose distinguished career was ended with his death in 1918 at age 21, just one week before the war ended. Has been passed as a Good article and A-Class by WikiProject: Military history. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Dabs, external links and alt text all look good.
  • My only question is about his enlistment. Do you know when he enlisted in the CMF? The AIF didn't care what you'd already been trained for so you could change from one specialty to another?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review, mate. The sources are not specific on his enlistment in the CMF, just that it was sometime during 1914. The AIF was raised exclusively for operational purposes in the war and you could basically get shoved anywhere. I think to some degree they took previous experence into consideration, but it was predominantly baised on locality and the units that were being raised for the state one enlisted in. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything seems fine to me. Just one small query. The Early life section doesn't mention any brothers or sisters. Was he an only child? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. Baker's entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography states he was the "eldest son of Richmond Baker", but the details of his sibling(s) are not specified in any source. Added in the aforementioned snippet, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support do we know if Baker went to St Peter's all the way from Reception (it's R-12) and if he stayed all the way to pass yr 12? From the fact that he worked as a bank teller, perhaps not. Also do we know if he a boarding student? From Smithfield to St Peters is about 30km one-way and Main North Road was a bumpy dirt track in those days. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review, YellowMonkey. :) According to his ADB entry, he began at the Collegiate School of St Peter, Adelaide, in 1911 and finished in 1914, so he was at the school for most of his high school studies. As aforementiond he left in 1914, so would have been in either YR 11 or 12. Not too sure about the last bit, though, as the sources are a little limited in this area. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a few really minor fixes (tricky typos like ensuring for ensuing, bought for brought). Great work! Maralia (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Maralia. I'm terrible for typos and spelling errors, though I'm not sure how I did the latter example ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great job. Two small things:

  • "Airborne over Pont-du-Hem, the trio released their bombs over German billets in the area, before spotting two Albatros D.Vs. The three Australians closed in on the two aircraft. Baker engaged an Albatros, his fire severing the left wing of the aircraft, effectively destroying the machine." It is not clear to me if the Albatros were airborne. If they were, than it would hardly seem necessary to add "effectively destroying the machine" after "severing the left wing of the aircraft". --JN466 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many occurrences of "as" in this passage: "A formation of Sopwith Snipes from No. 4 Squadron had been utilised as an escort as the initial raid was carried out, and then to protect the bombers as they returned to the Allied lines. However, as the Australians had executed the latter duty, they were tailed by a patrol of twelve Fokkers." I found the overall effect somewhat confusing and was unsure whether the last "as" meant "when" or "because". Perhaps: "A formation of Sopwith Snipes from No. 4 Squadron escorted the bombers during the initial raid, and then was to protect them on their return flight to Allied lines. However, a patrol of twelve Fokkers tailed the Australians on their return journey." --JN466 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [2].

SECR K and SR K1 classes edit

Nominator(s): Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has just gone through peer review, and all issues have been addressed. The article is on course for FA, and any further suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received. This is also a particularly important class of locomotive for Britain's railways as a whole, as it was the first of its type specifically built to haul passenger trains. Its involvement in the Sevenoaks disaster and subsequent rebuilding also makes it prominent amongst the locomotives of the Southern Railway.Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I very much like this article and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I do just have a few small things I think ought to be addressed though (inevitably).
  • "... No. 31806 and is currently under overhaul". Can we say when "currently" is, as it will surely age, and I've got no easy way of knowing when that was written. As of 2010?
  • "It was capable of high speeds on express passenger duties, although success was limited by the lower storage capacity of tank locomotives". The word "success" bothers me here. Success at what? Achieving high speeds? Something else?
  • "This group had modified suspension on the bogie and leading axle, in an attempt to address complaints of rough riding experienced with earlier members of the class". This doesn't quite work for me; as written it suggests that it was the complaints that experienced rough riding. Could the word "complaints" simply be dropped, as in "attempt to address the rough riding experienced ..."? Or "complaints from the crews of rough riding experienced ..."?

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch - as requested I have read the article and find it to be another fine addition to the series on British locomotives. I agree with the suggestions above and have a few suggestions / quibbles of my own, which do not detract from my support:

  • I know 2-6-4 is linked in the lead, but I think it would help to add a descriptive sentence at the start of the Design section to explain the ntation / design better for those less familiar with it. Perhaps something like "In the Whyte notation for the classification of steam locomotives, a 2-6-4 locomotive has two leading wheels, six coupled driving wheels and four trailing wheels." from the 2-6-4 article would work.
    • Would something like this modification of the current first sentence in the section work? The 2-6-4 wheel arrangement[, with two leading wheels, six coupled driving wheels and four trailing wheels,] was not in common use in Great Britain at this time, as many railway companies operated routes that required locomotives with greater fuel capacity, or short branch lines that necessitated smaller locomotives." I always think it useful to provide context to the reader and to the uninitiated Whyte notation is mysterious stuff. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need references for the following:
    • Construction of these locomotives had not begun by the time the SECR had been merged with other railways in southern England under the Railways Act 1921 to form the Southern Railway on 1 January 1923.
    • These were allocated the numbers A610–A629, and work had begun on building the frames and cylinders when the order was cancelled following an accident at Sevenoaks in 1927 involving locomotive No. 800.
    • When rebuilt into the U and U1 classes, the locomotives were repainted in the olive green livery with "Southern" added to the tender tank. This was carried into the Second World War when labour shortages meant that many U class locomotives were painted in plain black, with the result that by 1945 all the class were running in black. The livery was reverted to olive green, after the war, when overhauls were due.
  • I would make it clearer that only K1 was built (the use of K1 class made me think there must have been more than one). One place this could be added is in the table "K and K1 class construction history", add a column on class. I would also mention it explicitly in a few places, so "The [sole] K1 class locomotive No. A890 was named River Frome.[24]" or perhaps "Numbers were changed to the British Railways standard numbering system: the series 31790–31809 was allocated to the K class rebuilds, and 31890 to the [one locomotive of the] K1 class.[40]"
    • I have reread the article - I think it would still help to add in the section on the K1 class that the prototype was the only one ever built. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is quite well done, thanks for an interesting read. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a column on class to the abovementioned table.
It was not unusual in the UK to have a locomotive "class" which contained just one member; the most common reason was a prototype which was not multiplied for whatever reason. The Southern Railway only had one 2-6-4T with three cylinders and 6-foot driving wheels - it was K1 class, in order to distinguish it from other 2-6-4T/6-foot (K class, 2-cylinder), other 3-cyl/6-foot (U1 class, 2-6-0) or other 2-6-4T/3-cyl (W class, 5'6" wheel).
The problem with mentioning K1 class in the British Railways renumbering paragraph is that long before these locomotives became BR property, every single one had been rebuilt to the U or U1 classes, so to mention K/K1 in the context of BR numbers would be misleading. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that edit. The more I think about it, I would add that there were 20 K class and one K1 class in the lead. As for the rebuilt sentence, I was merely quoting what was already in the article "Numbers were changed to the British Railways standard numbering system: the series 31790–31809 was allocated to the K class rebuilds, and 31890 to the K1 class.[40]" with my suggested possible addition in [square brackets]. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lede amended --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I want to explicitly say that I looked at the three images. All are clearly sourced, and the licenses seem OK to me (though I am not an expert on British copyright law for the first two images). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments; Support per discussion. 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) bordering on support, pending reply from the nominator. Full disclosure: I was asked here by the nom after reviewing his previous nomination. The main issue that time around was the prose; this article seems to have come to FAC from a much better starting point. Depending on who turns up to review this, you might get some comments over technical descriptions that might only be understood fully by the layperson's clicking through to other articles. But I think you've more or less hit the right balance; each train article can't contain a history of locomotive design, after all. For the delegate (to know what kind of review this was): I've reviewed the article fully against WP:WIAFA while reading it three times; once this morning, once this afternoon, and again just now. The images seem to check out and the sources pass muster as reliable for their use. I couldn't check the content of the major sources, as they're almost all offline and unavailable to me without a lot of hassle, but I trust the nominator. I've got a couple of nitpicks, mainly relating to the prose, but they're so minor I'm not even going to bother listing them here. I'll either fix them myself tomorrow or dump them on the article's take page; frankly, if this article were to be passed in its current state it wouldn't be an issue for me. Oh, and I haven't checked for MOS-compliance yet, but I'll do that tomorrow too. For the nominator, a question: the inclusion of a "further reading" section sometimes indicates that not all resources have been tapped, in which case the article may not satisfy 1b. Have you access to these, and is it likely that the books listed will contain major details relevant to the article? If not, what's their relevance to the article? Otherwise, nice work. The subject isn't one that particularly interests me, but it was a pleasure to read something for once that was so well prepared. All the best, Steve T • C 23:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "further reading" section was my suggestion. It's mentioned at MOS:APPENDIX as the fourth of five standard appendices. Later at WP:FURTHERREADING it's given a fuller definition - the operative phrase here is "recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content". After all, we're not here to write the definitive account - professional authors do that; what we should be doing is stimulating peoples interest so that they can then go and read the definitive account written by these writers. IMHO, anything explicitly permitted by MOS cannot be criteria for denial of FA/GA classification. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I'm not saying that "Further reading" sections are unsuitable in featured articles, or that I'm going to oppose because of it. It's just that in my experience their presence is sometimes, by no means always, an indication that major sources have been ignored. I just wanted to make sure that—rather than merely giving fine detail outside the scope of this article—the publications didn't recount major events that we ignored. Steve T • C 11:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has been previously suggested, the 'Further reading' section has been added to provide a starting point for in-depth research into the nuances and minutiae of the class. As a core of several monographs have been used, they are bound to provide comprehensive coverage of the subject. A lot of the material in this article could be double-referenced from the sources consulted, but as this would be 'overkill', some of these references are best left for a 'Further reading' section. A general synopsis of what's available can be perused in this website, and whilst not necessarily exhaustive, it gives a rounded overview of a lot of relevant material. Thanks, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; colour me satisfied. Steve T • C 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Have referenced Ruhrfisch's suggestions. As for the first comment, it is possibly beyond the scope of this article to describe the wheel arrangement, which is why they have been Wikilinked. The problem with describing technical details is that they can affect the flow of the article. Therefore, its best to treat '2-6-4' as a technical term, and deserving of a link to a relevant article. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second response to suggestion: I'm sorry, but I beg to differ on this one. As several editors have pointed out, the context can be easily be found by clicking on the 2-6-4 Wikilink, which is a neat and tidy way of reducing the clutter in technical articles. As we have seen, an article about a particular class of steam locomotive is not the place to discuss the wheel arrangements involved, for this information compromises focus. This is therefore the reason why the creation of new pages should be encouraged to flesh-out specific terminology. To take a case in point imagine if, in the interests of 'providing context to the reader' by displaying the names of locomotives of a particular class, we had to copy and paste the entire table featured within List of West Country and Battle of Britain class locomotives onto the actual article. It would create a rather unsightly mess, drain computer resources in downloading the article, and would probably lose it the Featured Article status it currently holds. To achieve the current state of affairs, there were serious difficulties encountered in creating these 'appendix' articles to supplement the main articles, and no doubt pages about specific Whyte wheel arrangements were met with equal antipathy in the beginning. As such, by providing just the Wikilink in our articles, we are justifying the existence of these pages, which are important in keeping other articles tidy, and reducing the need to keep repeating the same information in every article about a 2-6-4, 4-6-0, 4-6-2 locomotive. I'm sorry if this has sounded blunt, but it needed saying. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already supported, so it was just an idea / suggestion. I would argue that the average reader inherently understands what a list of items entails, even without clicking on it. Furthermore, within this article, there is a brief explanation of the source of the names for the locomotives (rivers in the region served) in no less than three places (lead, infobox, and the "Naming the locomotives" section), as well as the wikilink to the complete list of names. As to the 2-6-4 arrangement, I doubt the average reader knows locomotives are classified by the number and type of wheels (or axles) they have. I fully agree that there should be a page on each of the different wheel arrangements and agree that the whole page should not be copied here (nor was I suggesting that). I just think that explaining briefly what 2-6-4 means (adding a total of 12 words to the article) might help reader understanding in addition to the wikilink. Be that as it may, thanks for the detailed reply, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "support for everyone!" -- I understand where Ruhrfisch is coming from with this one, and I would agree that there is a need to explain terminology and that the suggested replacement is short and clear. But I must side with Bulleid Pacific -- adding the extra text would degrade the flow of the prose. I would also make the point that someone interested enough to read this article would probably either already know about the concept/meaning of wheel arrangement notation and/or the basic terminology surrounding railways and steam locomotives, or feel the need/have the desire to look it up and understand it, fairly quickly. Having just looked at the article, prior to the location Ruhrfisch suggested for the addition, the reader will have encountered 2-6-4 as the very first link in the article, and subsequently 2-6-0, 4-4-0, and 0-6-0 as well. For any article the editors need to decide on a level of 'technical' understanding on the part of the reader (supplemented by the excellent wikilinking facility) below which the decomposition of terms starts to obscure the story being told. I would suggest that we are bouncing around that boundary with this one.
      • EdJogg (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already struck my suggestion above, was just trying to explain why I though a dozen extra words might help. I am fine with it either way. I am not a train person and although I have read most of the FAs on British locomotives (and this) multiple times in either PR or FAC or both, I still have to click the link to remind myself exactly what the three sets of numbers mean. All done, I promise ;0) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, see my edit summaries, a bit more WP:NBSP attention needed, and citations don't list correct article titles, pls check throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [3].

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare edit

Nominator(s): Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a GA review and I believe it has a strong prospect of meeting the FA criteria. Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Comments.

  1. Can you explain what S fluid is? There is an explanation for PD-fluids, but not for S-fluids.
    Done: S fluids is no longer abbreviated - "sterile fluids" all the way through. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think 'Legislation' subsection should be before 'The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission'.
    Agree and done. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prior to Baxter, the leading case on derivative governmental immunity in Australia was Bradken Consolidated Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd. Please, specify the year when this case was decided.
    Done. Now "the 1979 High Court judgment in Bradken". --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Federal Court of Australia (Allsop J presiding) found in Baxter's favour at first instance. Please, specify the date.
    Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Allsop J's judgment was upheld unanimously on appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court. How many judges are in the full bench? From the next section is follows that only three. Is the federal court so small? As I understand at the first instance the case was decided by a single judge?
    Done, I think. I've specified and wikilinked the three presiding judges. The Federal Court has dozens of judges, but its "full bench" for each case is just any three of its judges who didn't hear the case at first instance. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wynyard Investments v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) Please, specify the date when this case was decided. In addition can you briefly characterize this case?
    Done, I hope. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. or to prevent a divesting or proprietary, contractual or other legal rights and interests Should not it be "of" here? (instead of "or")
    Done - my typo not the judges'. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. not merely commercial or policy in nature I suggest "not merely commercial or political in nature".
    Done, kind of, by saying "policy interests or rights". The phrase used by the source is "the protected rights or interests must be legal in nature, and not merely commercial or policy interests or rights". I've rephrased a little to make the representation of the source more accurate without too closely adopting its words. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. whether derivative governmental immunity will extend to private sector providers carry out governmental functions Should not it be "carrying out" here?

Ruslik_Zero 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks very much for all the points. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much neglected area: support.

  • "Monopoly" and probably "statute" seem common enough not to link. WP is not a dictionary.
  • "state and territory governments"—isn't this a generic usage, irrespective of the capitalitis all over legal texts? See MoS on caps."Australian Government Solicitor", but "senior counsel" and "section 2B" (the last of which has always irritated me—WP doesn't care what bizarre local customs are perpetrated).
    • Decapitalised states and territories; capitalised Senior Counsel and legislative Section refs (definitely contrary to Australian local legal custom, but you're quite right, I hadn't even considered that it might not be accepted MOS standard.) --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Queensland"—is a reader going to consult the whole article on that state? Either don't link (assuming the reader knows something about Australian jurisdictions) or link to a more specific target—a section or a daughter article.
    • De-linked Queensland but kept the linkings of other states where the article definitely refers to the state or its government rather than an institution of it (eg in naming the States that were joined to the case). Actually I've delinked all the states, the links probably distract from more valuable links that are nearby (eg links to the law firms and barristers who appeared in the case). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some choppy paragraphing; e.g., Federal Court litigation. Probably one para better here.
    • Have combined a few paras here and there to reduce the choppiness. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state governments"—suddenly territories are not included.
    • have included territories where talking about derivative immunity generally, but not when talking about the facts of the case specifically (as neiher territory was a party to the case). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comfortable (and grammatically logical) to link "Justice Kirby" rather than just the second word?
  • "Seddon also criticised the outcome of the case itself"—is "also" helping?
  • "governmental immunity"—erky! immunity of governments?
    • I've tossed and turned on this one a number of times, whether to go with "Crown immunity" or "governmental immunity". I decided to go with the latter as (1) the Robertson Wright source uses that term and makes a compelling argument (referring to case law on the point) why it is more accurate (see footnote 1) and (2) it will make more sense to international readers. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. Tony (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks heaps for the comments. Let me know if you disagree with anything I've said/done in response. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you'll be putting your talents to producing and improving more Austr. legal articles. Tony (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
    • Okay, I realize you're using a template for the cite case bit, but it's not exactly reader friendly in telling folks what this arcane link IS. Would it be possible to add something like Australian Court Records/etc after the link?
      • I've manually changed all of the case law footnotes to not use the template (I didn't like the template much anyway). Each footnote now refers to the name of the case, the court, the year, the number of the report, and links to the judgment itself. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One dealink shown in the tools. this one
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps for that. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some countries, the term "sovereign immunity", "qualified immunity" or "limited immunity" is used. Not applicable here?

  • I've not seen any of those three terms used in contemporary Australian law. The literature and case law seems to split between "Crown immunity" and "governmental immunity". But it is largely the same thing as sovereign immunity. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some articles, there has been heated discussion about a criticism section. Is inclusion of a criticism sub-section automatic disqualification from being an FA or is it permitted? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think having a criticism section on a court ruling makes more sense than it would in many other cases, since it's a specific decision; I can't see where the information would as helpfully go otherwise. Rebecca (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WP:NBSP attention needed throughout (Section and No. should be joined by a non-breaking space to avoid line wrap). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [4].

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov edit

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is an article on the other great man of Russian classical music, after Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, who was a tremendous influence on his peers and followers. I am nominating this for featured article because, after careful research, much writing and an exhaustive peer review (and, in the last of which, thanks especially to Awadewit for her extensive commentary, which was extremely helpful), I believe it does justice to its subject and represents Wikipedia at its best in terms of bredth, scope and overall quality. Special thanks also to Ruhrfisch for his supplying the lead image, for his help in researching the other images, and for his commentary in the peer review. Jonyungk (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • In refs but not notes: Figes, Volkov; Brown, "Wandering";
  • In notes but not refs: Griffiths; Abraham "Slavonic";
  • There are two "taruskin" sources, but three notes only refer to "taruskin" and a page no.
  • • Ling.Nut 08:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing these out. They have been corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for alerting me to these links. Jonyungk (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ruhrfisch - I was involved in the very extensive peer review and all of my (and the others') concerns raised there have been addressed. I also cropped the lead image from the larger portrait. I found a typo and corrected it just now. I think this meets all the criteria for a FA and is extremely well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed a few repeat links (The Five, etc), and chain links "Beethoven's" (9th symphony), where Beethoven will be linked at the top of the more specific 9th symphony article.
  • Some of the images were unnecessarily small. Tony (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a ref for the second footnote (the one about Rubinstein)? The Ministry (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article has only improved since I last read it at peer review. Any issues I had regarding the sources and the images were resolved at the peer review. And might I say how interesting and brilliantly written this article is? I get engrossed each time I read it. Thanks so much, Jonyungk! Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review completed at peer review and verified again at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support: I have some relatively minor (mainly prose) issues from my reading of the first few sections. I haven't read the rest yet, but it's obviously a deeply-researched and comprehensive composer biog. I am doing some routine copyedits and link-fixing as I go through.

  • Lead: Shouldn't the cited material be in the main body of the article, and cited there?
    • It is cited there. I have removed citations from the lead section. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life:
    • Name repetition - nerdish, I know, but I counted seven mentions of the name "Rimsky-Korsakov" in the first paragraph of this section, ten in the second paragraph and seven more in the third. Some of the repetitions are very close, e.g. "Rimsky-Korsakov later recalled (emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)". The constant use of this already awkward name has an adverse effect on the prose; some imaginative rephrasing and judicious use of pronouns would make the section read much better.
      • I have cut down use of the name and increased use of pronouns. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ship image: there are two ships - which is Rimsky's?
      • I clicked on the image and looked at it enlarged. There appears to be only one ship in the foreground of the photo, with a small boat alongside it. That ship is the Almaz. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you are right! The small boat creates an illusion of two ships (to my bleary eye at least) Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentored by Balakirev etc: In a quote we have "improvositations". No such word in English, should it be "improvisations"? The quote is a translation; if the source actually says "improvositations", then a {sic} should be added.
    • Thanks for pointing this out. I have corrected the word. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professorship etc
    • R-K become professor while still serving in the navy. It would be better to mention this at the start of this section, or readers will wonder what became of his naval career.
      • I have shifted copy to make this correction. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...plus he served as Professor of Music Theory..." - inelegant. "and was serving as" would be much better.
      • What about "and served as"? I was told in FAC, regarding another article, that "ing" constructions should be avoided. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say: "the navy created the post of Inspector of Naval Bands," but you need to add that R-K was appointed to it.
    • "The post came with a promotion..." Is this the band inspector post?
      • Yes. This disctinction has been made in the text. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "plus orchestrated original works and a number of works by other composers" - that inelegant "plus" again. This one can be replaced with a simple "and". There is another, later in the text, that also needs fixing.
      • This "plus" has been eliminatewd. I will keep an eye out for the other one as I go through the rest of the article. Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the later sections will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • Backlash section
    • Why was Rubinstein's faint praise thought "worse" than the outright condemnation of the nationalists?
      • Because of Rubinstein's position as a composer opposed to The Five's music and philosophy; he was considered by R-K to be one of the heads, oif not the head, of the enemy camp when it came to Russian music. This is still lumpy, but I've rewritten the passage to read, "Worse still to Rimsky-Korsakov was the faint praise given by Anton Rubinstein because of Rubinstein's position as a composer opposed to the nationalists' music and philosophy." Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he became intermittently paralyzed creatively..." This does not read well (verb sandwiched by adverbs). Suggested rephrase: "from time to time he suffered from creative paralysis."
  • Belyayev circle
    • Is the description of Belyayev as a "capitalist" relevant?
      • Yes, not just because of his financial means but also because he and other capitalists who supported the arts in Russia tended to support the nationalist rather then more cosmopolitan artists, who were supported by the nobility. I have fleshed this out to explain but don't want to overdetail. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence: "The Russian Symphony Concerts were just one of several avenues through which Belyayev worked to aid Russian composers, and for which Rimsky-Korsakov wrote that he was asked for advice and guidance." There is disjunction between the two clauses (or I am reading it wrongly). Can you clarify?
      • How about this: "Rimsky-Korsakov wrote that he was asked for advice and guidance not just on the Russian Symphony Concerts, but on several other projects through which Belyayev aided Russian composers." Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, but do we need to say "wrote that he"? Why not just: "R-K was asked for advice etc"?
          • I can live with "R-K was asked for advice etc." Thought I was told in peer review it needed to be attributed, but if you don't think it needs so, that's fine with me. Jonyungk (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think, since Rimsky is the subject of the article, you needn't make the direct attribution. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glinka was somewhat casually brought into the last section, without fanfare. Now he is Mihail Glinka, linked and with dates. Perhaps this formal introduction should be in the earlier section?
    • "Saint Petersburg" - previously we had "St. Petersburg"
      • I already caught the "St. Petersburg" and changed it. The term should now read "Saint Petersburg" throughout the article. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increased contact with Tchaikowsky: Does Modest's simile really describe what you term "friction"
    • I'm open to using another word. How would you describe it? Detente, perhaps? Jonyungk (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "detente" means the relaxing of tension, the opposite of what Modest wished to convey. Howvever, "tension" would fit very nicely. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later years
    • "Another death, ironically,..." Whose opinion is "ironically"? If from the source, needs to be clarified to avoid POV feel.
      • Meant that it was ironic that a death caused a creative renewal. The word "ironically" has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "300 additional students" - I don't think "additional" is necessary here.
    • What is a "kichkist"?
      • A typo—it now reads "kuchkist" and is explained as "(after kuchka, the shortened Russian term for The Five)". Jonyungk (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will try and wrap up tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments

  • Opera: The first sentence, cited to Abraham, needs to be attributed in the text.
  • Orchestral works
    • The words "in other words" are unnecessary as an intro to what follows
    • "these three compositions" - the preceding text has been so complex that I had lost sight of which three compositions. Could we be reminded?
    • Likewise (next paragraph) "in this category " - needs clarifying as to which category
  • Smaller-scaled works: Being really nit-picky, the word "latter" only applies to the second of two. In this case the wording should be "last-named".
  • Editing the works of the five: Attribution problems in the second paragraph. Declarative statements such as "While Rimsky-Korsakov's efforts in this regard are laudable, they are also at times controversial" need to be specifically attributed in the text. Same applies to "Still more debatable..." at the start of he third paragraph.
    • These statements are now attributed. Jonyungk (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folklore and pantheism: Perhaps the link for pantheism could be moved up and piped to pantheistic.
  • Publications: "They provide remarkable insights into his life and work." Source? POV?

That concludes my comments. I look forward to fully supporting when these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: All concerns adequately addressed. An impressive, well-prepared and well-written piece of work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Well written and well sourced article. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I just don't understand the point of (emphsasis Rimsky-Korsakov). Could you please explain that to me? The article meets all the criteria and shows the incredible amount of hours spent on it: they were really worth! OboeCrack (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov) means that Rimsky-Korsakov was the one who placed part of a quote in italics, thus emphasizing it. Thanks for your support. Jonyungk (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is "coupterpoint" correct? It looks like "counterpoint", but I didn't change it 'cause it's within quotation marks... and would it be OK if we changed all instances of "(emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)" to "[emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov's]"? In particular, I think the use of square brackets is generally preferred over parentheses in this case. The possessive is less important. • Ling.Nut 12:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for catching this. It should actually be "counterpoint"—unfortunately, my fingers don't cooperate as well in the spelling department than they used to. As to square brackets, the rule usually is to use them within a quote and to use parentheses outside thw quote. I have no problem with using square brackets but that also means a couple of quote marks will have to be moved. Jonyungk (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have moved "(emphasis Rimsky-Korsakov)" inside the quotes and changed the parentheses to square brackets. Jonyungk (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [5].

Rambles in Germany and Italy edit

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about a riveting (really!) political travel narrative by Mary Shelley. As usual, I look forward to the polish that the FA process will apply to it. Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I peer reviewed this in late 2009 and thought it very ready for FAC then. All of my comments there have been addressed, and I am glad to see the map has been considerably upgraded too. My only quibble is in the alt text Left-looking half-length painted portrait of a slightly pregnant woman in a white dress - I am not sure a woman can be "slightly pregnant" - perhaps "in the early stages of pregnancy" would work better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your helpful peer review and your support now. Isn't EyeSerene's map wonderful? I thought it worth waiting for that. My cartographical skills are not what they could be. Changed alt text as suggested. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I wanted to say that I have looked at all the images and they all have free licenses and are clearly sourced. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text looks good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:Shelley rambles map.svg does not convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map; please see WP:ALT#Maps. I suggest something that says the 1840 trip went from Hastings to Paris, then a great loop east to Coblenz and Frankfurt, south to Milan, west to Lyons, and then back home through Paris, and that the 1842–1843 trip went from Southampton east to Berlin, then south through Prague, Venice, and Rome to Naples. Also, there are several phrases to avoid such as "color photograph of" (particularly the phrase "black-and-white" that's describing an oil painting in colors!), but that's far less important. Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the route is described in some detail in the article (see the "Travelling and writing" section), I left that out of the alt text per the instructions at WP:ALT, but I will add it in later today since you think it will help. I tend to write alt text for the sight-impaired and for those viewing Wikipedia without images (such as those reading the articles on a mobile phone in the developing world), so I don't think that indicating colors and media are as irrelevant as others do. Also, I tend to think it is important to indicate the variety of media in the article, but this is simply a difference of opinion. (I'm not sure why you are opposed to the black-and-white description - the image we have is not in color, even if the original was.) Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that looks good, and resolves the major issue. (We'll just have to agree to disagree about the words to avoid.) Eubulides (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several opportunities for named refs here. Since I can't imagine you overlooking them, are you against them? • Ling.Nut 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am, actually. I find that combined references easily break during the editing process and it is yet another hurdle that new users have to overcome that doesn't really add anything to the article, so I tend to leave them out. If someone wants to add them, I won't revert, but I tend not to add them myself. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, beautifully written and detailed. I can scarcely find any fault with it. I did not find any problems with the images that Eubulides missed; concur that the alt text for the map should concisely describe the routes depicted. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support - I will work on the alt text for the map later today. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment: Almost worth supporting just for the wonderful map - congratulations for that. I am reading through, and have a few prose niggles from the lead: Minor issues follow, all now resolved or in progress. Excellent article.

  • "In order to assist him financially,..." First two words unnecessary.
  • "by intervention" jars slighly; "through the", or "with the", perhaps?
  • The sentence "In so doing, she challenges the early nineteenth-century convention that it was improper for women to write about politics, following in the tradition of Lady Morgan and Mary Wollstonecraft, her mother." To remove the slight ambiguity which suggests that Mary Wollstonecroft might be Lady Morgan's mother I suggest you amend to "her mother, Mary Wollstonecroft, and Lady Morgan".

One other thing: the whole Risorgimento section is covered with citation [3], which turns out to be a triple citation to two authors and three books. Why not subdivide, so that it is apparent which parts of the section are attributable to which sources?

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, this is the perfect example of a combined ref - this is background information and the bulk of the summary comes from one source. A couple of details come from other others, but to make that totally clear would take about 10 more notes, which would seriously decrease readability for no real gain, since this paragraph is simply context for the topic of the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to simply change sentences like the ones you listed above. If you don't feel comfortable doing so, I'll just wait until you list them all and do them all together, if that's ok. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Later): I'm not completely convinced by your defence of the citing for the Risorgimento section. It seems that the convenience of the reader is being somewhat overlooked for appearance's sake. But I won't press the point. While reading through I have done as you suggest and made several minor copyedits. I also have a few questions/comments:-
  • No information is given on the mode of travel for the first journey. For the second journey there is eventually a mention of "railway, carriage and boat", but it's way down the article. Could this information be given earlier?
  • 1842-44 section: Who was Robert Leslie Ellis? Also, the fourth paragraph of this section is not really within the topic of this article, Shelley's book, and could be substantially shortened.
  • Description of text, Part II: why is the long quote formatted differently from the blockquote format used earlier and later?
  • History of the travel narrative: I can't work out what the second part of this sentence means: "All aristocratic gentlemen took similar trips and visited similar sites, often devoted to developing an appreciation of Britain from abroad."
  • Italian politics: "They connected nationalism to their enemy—Napoleonic France." Perhaps, since we're in the 1840s, this should read "historic" enemy. Likewise I found, later in the paragraph, the phrase "supporting Napoleon" a bit anachronistic.
  • Memory and healing: Could a date be added for History of a Six Weeks' Tour?
These are in general very minor matters and I hope to be supporting soon. Brianboulton (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedits - they are much appreciated.
Do you think the information about mode of travel should go in the "Traveling and writing" section or the "Description of text" section?
Personally, I'd put it in as early as possible. As I tried to visualise the Shelley party on their travels I kept thinking: did they walk (as "rambles" implies)? Did they, like the Mozarts, go by horse and carriage? Were the trains running? - etc. It came as a relief when I saw "railway, carriage and boat", and could have done with this knowledge sooner.
Added. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found an entry for "Robert Leslie Ellis" in the DNB, but I don't for sure is this is the same person. His bio doesn't say anything about going to Europe at this time and the Shelley materials don't say anything about him.
If you're not sure that the DNB man is your man, you could do an Ealdgyth and say "who was possibly...[whatever the DNB says}". Or you could just add "whose identity is unknown" or similar. Leaving it as it is makes it seem as if we should know who he was.
I'm just not sure this is the best route - the Shelley sources aren't uncertain in this manner. I'm wondering if they assume we will think it is the famous Ellis. I just don't want to insert an uncertainty (e.g. "unknown identity") where there isn't one. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Gatteschi material is within the scope of the article, as she wrote the book to help him and the subsequent disaster was partially a result of writing the book. For Shelley, this book was largely about her political views on Italy, of which this incident was a key part. I generally don't like to divorce the book from the history of its composition and publication. However, I am, of course, open to suggestions to shorten it while still retaining the general gist of the paragraph. What would you suggest cutting exactly?
I do understand Gatteschi's relevance, it's just that I found the level of detail in this paragraph distracting. I will give thought to how it might be reduced.
The blockquote in Part II is next to an image - without that formatting, the quote would be flush against the image and not indented.
Ah, these technical niceties!
"often devoted to developing an appreciation of Britain from abroad". Men who took the Grand Tour were supposed to appreciate Britain from a different perspective than those living in Britain - they were supposed to look at it from a more cosmopolitan perspective - does that make sense?
If you replaced "often devoted to" with "with the intention of", and said "as seen from abroad", the meaning would be clear.
Done. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to fix anachronism.
Fine now.
Added date the first time the text is mentioned.
Fine now
Thanks for you careful attention! Awadewit (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm switching to support, since the outstanding issues are easily fixable, when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support - see the above fixes. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Would you object to me adding an infobox? The Ministry (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would. Infoboxes on book articles tend to repeat information found in the lead, making them redundant. Also, they add a lot of extra code at the top of the article, which discourages new users from editing. I hope you don't mind that I've restored the photograph to the lead image. Since it is in color, it is much more eye-catching than the title page. Readers will be more attracted to colorful page (sad, but true). If the title page were more exciting, I would fully endorse putting it at the top of the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way on the Infobox thing.. but for The Illusional Ministry, here's a rule to live by through thick and thin: Arts and Lit people Hate Infoboxes.. There you go. For free, even. :-) • Ling.Nut 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't hate infoboxes per se. I think they are really useful in articles about planets and chemical elements, for example, but books just can't be easily and usefully categorized the same way. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for dragging us off-topic.• Ling.Nut 02:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full Support

  • I read this article in one of its incarnations last summer, relating to my work on German unification. I thought then it was a fantastic article, and would have supported it at the time. Now, it is even better: fantastic map, lovely, lyrical prose with a wonderful cadence. No distractions (i.e. info boxes ;) )and all around it is a fantastic article. Awedewit dealt then with my quibbles about the article, and since then she has made it even better. Not passing this would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your kind comments and support! Awadewit (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - I wish we had more literature articles of this standard. The Ministry (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and the compliment! Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 1a.

  • Overlinking: I've cleansed it. Catholic was linked countless times; so was "Italy", etc., and pilgrimmage. These are dictionary words, and in most cases have more specific links in the text, anyway. "Italian language" is piped with "Tuscan Italian"—so Tuscan Italian became the modern Italian language, I guess. "Sublime" pipes "Sublime (philosophy)". Is her use of "sublime" in this sense? I wonder whether the word should be in quotes (if it's hers). It was linked three times, as though to hammer home a point.
  • I've restored some the links you removed. For example, picturesque, sentimentality, and Sublime (philosophy), are all links to literary terms that had a specific meaning during the 18th and 19th centuries that readers will probably not be familiar with. I see, for example, that you were unsure of her use of "sublime" - that is precisely why it was linked. Shelley is using sublime in the philosophical sense - she is following in the Burkean tradition (see his A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful). Many writers during the 18th century and early 19th century use this word, so it is not necessary to quote it, in my opinion, as it is not extra special to Shelley. The reason I linked it so many times is because it has such a specific meaning, however I have just linked it once now. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the spacing of the ellipsis points.
  • I guess the large white space beneath the Corregio is unavoidable. Tony (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other option is to have the quote flush against the image. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support - any time to read dissertation chapters? ;) Awadewit (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I will be in the hospital for the next three days. I am unsure if I will have internet access. Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from the hospital. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to delegates: The outstanding points per my review, above, are not in my view substantial enough to delay the article's promotion, if a consensus exists. They can easily be settled afterwards. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I peer-reviewed this in December November and said, "This beautifully written article was a great pleasure to read and will sail through FAC, I am certain." I haven't changed my mind. Finetooth (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and kind words, my friendly comb! :) Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I glanced at the article when it was first nominated and found it to be impressive. Now, with a full reading, I see a well developed and nicely written piece about an often overlooked author. Happy to support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Truthkeeper! It's wonderful how much attention this article is getting! Imagine what will happen when I finally get around to writing up Frankenstein! Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awadewit, why do you dislike named refs? They would really shorten the notes (pls check my punc addition in the infobox). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see response above. I don't think short notes are better than easier to edit notes. I've removed the period you added to the caption - there is no period in the original. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks ... I saw one really messy quote in there (punctuation), but it was an exact quote, so don't see how to demessify it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [6].

Jack the Ripper edit

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The editors of the page have already taken the article through peer review and good article nomination and seek further guidance on areas for improvement.

The literature on the Ripper is vast. In the interests of focus and length, the details of the victims, murders, clues, and fiction can be found in daughter articles, and are only presented here in outline. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A very worthy article on a difficult subject. I have the following comments about the text, which is very well written generally.

Murders
  • The canonical/non canonical distinction is puzzling to me. I would imagine that the canonical murders were marked by many of the characteristics listed (removal of internal organs, etc.) but this is not entirely clear, nor is the reason why the first two are considered non-canonical.
Canonical five
  • "Stride and Eddowes were killed on Sunday 30 September 1888" It is mentioned that their bodies were found between 1 and 2 a.m. I imagine this was the early morning hours of the 30th? Or 1st October?
  • "shortly after 10:45 a.m." Odd reading. Why not just say "soon before 11 a.m." or words to that effect?
  • Watch your non breaking spaces, as in "5 victims".
I disagree. If the numeral "5" falls at the end of the line, the reader will not become disoriented when their eyes zip back over to the next line to see "victims". The case of "5 victims" is not specified at Wikipedia:MOS#Non-breaking_spaces or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Non-breaking_spaces. Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later Whitechapel murders:
  • "that the murder was committed elsewhere and that parts of the dismembered body were dumped at the crime scene." Do the words "crime scene" refer to the railway arch? I would simply say so, since both the place where the victim was killed (if she was) and where she was dumped could be considered crime scenes.
Other alleged victims
  • Fairy Fay. I find the whole sequence here a bit confusion. If this was a later invention, it might be best to start something like "Beginning in 1950, newspapers printed accounts of another supposed Ripper victim, who was allegedly killed yada yada. However, there is no contemporary account of such a killing, and no record of any murders ..." You get the idea.
  • "She was later postulated as the Ripper's first victim," Perhaps "Some theories suggest that she was the Ripper's first victim, but he cannot be definitely linked to her"."
  • "river Thames" Wouldn't you normally capitalize this?
  • "he was not connected to the crimes" Ambiguity. If you mean that the police were unable to procure evidence of guilt, might want to say so. It sounds like you are clearing him of being the Ripper, and I'm not sure if it is you saying that or the police.
  • Carrie Brown. The police must have ruled out Ripper involvement quite some time after the fact. Certainly not while Thomas Byrnes was still inspector!
Investigation
"Police work today follows the same pattern" Detaining 80 people?
  • "The committee was led by George Lusk in 1888." That sounds appropos of nothing, I'm afraid. Perhaps merge it into another sentence a bit more artfully. Unless this committe went on for some time, I'd omit the date, too.
Criminal profiling
  • "Robert Anderson". I would delink and omit the description of his job. He was just mentioned.
  • "Queen Victoria" Quite a "commentator"!! Perhaps make it "Some of those who followed the case at the time, including Queen Victoia, suggested ..."
Letters
  • "Some sources list another letter, dated 17 September 1888, as the first to use the name of Jack the Ripper, but most experts believe this was a modern fake inserted into police records in the 20th century, long after the killings took place." I would put this as a footnote.
Legacy
  • As a suggestion, you might want to lead off with what is now the second paragraph. That the Ripper had such a positive legacy might be worth displaying to the reader right up front.

That is all I have. I look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've made an edit that addresses many of these points [7] either by removal or rephrasing. Points not addressed are:
First victim: I'd rather not say "some theories" as this makes it sound like a widespread view held by many.
river Thames: I prefer lower case, but am not bothered if it is capitalised.
Carrie Brown: I have said "eventually" but I think it was ruled out very quickly by the London police at least.
Fake letter: I did put this in a footnote, but another editor felt that it ought to be placed in the text, so I put it back per [8]. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns having been substantively addressed, I feel this is an excellent summary of an topic about which an immense amount has been written.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This subject has always interested me, beginning with being terrfied by him when I was a kid and teased about it by my father. Meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the various bits separately, so in case they are by noted specialists in the field, we can discuss each one based on the author not just the website.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To take each page in turn:
    • Christopher Scott is the author of Will the Real Mary Kelly...?.
    • Christopher-Michael DiGrazia provides sources, has published in Ripperologist magazine, and is the co-author of The News from Whitechapel: Jack the Ripper in the "Daily Telegraph". If required, this reference could be replaced by one from an academic peer-reviewed journal, but a subscription is necessary to access it: Wolf, Gunter (2008). "A kidney from hell? A nephrological view of the Whitechapel murders in 1888". Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation vol. 23 pp. 3343–3349.
    • Stewart P. Evans is the author/co-author of Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates, Executioner: The Chronicles of James Berry, Victorian Hangman, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, The Lodger: Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, amongst others.
    • The casebook website is operated by Stephen P. Ryder, who is the author of Public Reactions to Jack the Ripper and co-author of Ripper Notes: Jack the Slasher, and Thomas Schachner, who is the co-author of Jack the Ripper: Anatomie einer Legende [in German].
    • As above. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are in the article instances of both spaced en dashes (in image text and book title) and em dashes (in quoted bits.) My reading of WP:DASH makes me conclude that one of the two dash styles should be changed to the other for consistency.
    • Why are there so many hidden comments? A handful of Rumbelow cites have been hidden near the list of similarly-named murders, a mention of Robert Napper, the victim Mary Kelly as related to tourism, a Begg cite and a Woods cite—all hidden. Could the Rumbelow cites be shown? Could Napper be introduced? Mary Kelly explicitly listed? The See also area typically does not need any referencing.
    • There is no need for a full-stop at the end of sentence fragments in image blurbs.
  • WP:DASH use to say use mdashes sparingly, so an ndash is used in the image caption. The other instances reflect the original sources: an mdash is used in the original quote and an ndash is used in the original chapter title.
  • The hidden comments are references for those murders being named after the Ripper. I prefer to hide them than pepper the sentence with footnotes, which looks untidy and reduces "readability". The references in the See also section are for sources which link those events to the Ripper, but again they look silly if revealed. Napper removed. Mary Kelly is known to have drank at the Ten Bells, the others are postulated to have done so. I think listing her specifically is cumbersome, but the name is hidden there to remind me which one of them was known to drink there. DrKiernan (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation in quotes can be changed without comment to fit overall article style; it is done all the time in the publishing world. The suggestion to use em dashes sparingly applies just as firmly to their cousins the spaced en dash, as the two have the same usage in sentence interruption. However, your usage of spaced en dashes does not constitute sentence interruption, since one is a chapter title and one is the beginning of image text which isn't even a full sentence. I withdraw any objection to your use of dashes. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, just wanted to pick your brain on the issue of hidden comments, to judge purposefulness or forgetfulness. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I've taken out the stops on the image blurbs. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, very well done and a significant move forward in the article content and quality. Personally, I'd like to see an additional para in 'background'. An excellent source is Bill Fishman's East End 1888 - which includes a chapter on the Ripper, but predominantly deals with the social melting pot. The principle Irish immigration to the area was associated with the weaving trade - which was in serious decline towards the later half of the century. A lot of the overcrowding was due to the development of the docks and railways - which displaced many poorer people into the area. So, I'm not really sure of the relevance of the 'Bloody Sunday' demo specifically to the East End - you can probably supply a justification for that. Of more relevance is probably anti-immigration agitation that lead to the formation of the British Brothers League in 1902. I'd also look to including a Booth poverty map of the district (see one here - but it obviously needs a free source). Anyway, the question always arises as to when we stop; and that's a function of your excellent editing! As it stands, I have no hesitation in expressing my support that this now represents the 'best of wikipedia'. I will declare an interest that in the past I have had my mitts in this article; but not for some time. Kbthompson (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Saw this article when it was nominated for GA and it has improved since then. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query, can the text squeeze between images in the "Letters" section be solved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [11].

Bodiam Castle edit

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bodiam Castle is one of the most picturesque castles in England, and one of the most popular. Built in the late 14th century, it's not certain that there was every any military action at Bodiam, so the history section is mostly about ownership and what the owners did with the castle. It's not a long article, but in light of what some might think is a quiet history, it's comprehensive. The main source for the article is the National Trust guidebook which cover the main points in the castle's history, and padded out by references from other books. I have searched the indexes of the journal Medieval Archaeology, but they had nothing to add beyond what is already in the article. Hopefully, others will agree that the prose is up to the mark. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is a detailed, informative article that describes not only the castle (with outstanding photography) but also its construction, military role, and iconic status in bygone days. I don't feel well-qualified to spot technical flaws in this article, but beyond doubt it deserves to become a FA. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The castle is so photogenic I think it must be impossible to take a bad photo of it. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assuming the issues I can see are fixed. I am far from able to find all textual errors but there are some problems I have found on reading through. References look good - .... all happy now - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Situated in a moat and an artificial watery landscape, display and defence were was an important aspects of the castle as well as defence - gets rid of the "as well as"
      • The original phrasing was deliberate. It is a popular mindset that castles were military buildings first and foremost, however within castle studies there is great debate about their purpose. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. The thrust appears to agree with the following text - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • and is today open to the public - not sure what "today" adds here as it is implicit in the sentence.
    • Dalygrigge did would not have had long to spend in the completed castle - 3 years is either short or not.
    • Link to disambiguation page Estate needs a specific target like Estate (law)
      • Someone added a host of useless links to the article which are now gone. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes 1-4. Is there a source for the currency conversion used ? I assume that reference 18 has been used, in which case it should be noted.
    • Today, the castle is open to the public - would be much better as something like from <date> the castle has been open to the public
      • Easier said than done. The problem is what constitutes "open to the public"; as mentioned earlier in the article, people were visiting the site as early as the 18th century, but it's probably only under the National Trust that it became official. The current phrasing is intentionally ambiguous, but I do not believe it hinders the reader's understand. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The area surrounding Bodiam Castle was landscaped at the same time as when the castle was built - seems to say the same thing in far less words
    • but only the moat survives today - the striken word does not seem to add anything of significance
    • the interior is ruinous - shouldn't this be ruined rather than ruinous ?
      • The two are synonymous and it's more elegant than "in ruins" or "ruined". Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images and alt text look good but File:Plan of Bodiam Castle.jpg is missing a licence. Should consider whether there is sufficient PD information to create a free replacement
      • The article now uses this redrawn image which has been relicensed. Thanks to Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs) for fixing this one, it was beyond my skills. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better - do you want the old Jpg deleted now ? All the changes look good.- Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've copied the relevant information to the new file so the old jpeg is ready to be deleted if you'd do the honours. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all those text changes really do that much to improve the article. I might say "display as much as defense" but the original wording expresses the presumably surprising idea that a medieval castle would be built for show. Saying when the castle was opened to the public would be nice, but given the uncertainty of some of the history it could be a very hard thing to track down (when was the cottage built?). "Ruinous" is a synonym of ruined in Webster [12] though not (ahem) Wiktionary [13]. Your proofreading is useful, but I think it shows that the text is in pretty good shape. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab links sorted. Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • The Saul reference is a journal article, title of the article should be in quotes, just like the taylor ref. (Normally I'd just have fixed, but I don't do citation, I do cite, so I have no clue how to fix it)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I'd used |publisher= instead of |journal= so the article title wasn't quite right. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Article reads well throughout, appears well-sourced (to be fair, I am not well-versed in the topic), and the photos are stunning. I made a couple of picky punctuation changes that weren't worth posting here, and the rest is in fine shape. This would be a more-than-worthy FA. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Beautifully written and well sources. Clear explanation of the history of the castle, its construction, ruin, and preservation. Context was nicely established, and not over done. Wonderful illustrations which particularly enhance the idea that the castle was created not only for protection but for effect, and possibly more the latter than the former. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment picture used in infobox is pending VP promotion. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review by Dr pda. Per a request on WT:FAC I have reviewed the images in the article to check for copyright/licensing issues. I don't have time at the moment to fully review the article.
    • File:Bodiam-castle-10My8-1197.jpg - OK (professional looking, author given as professional photographer, uploaded by user with same username as photographer, cc-by-sa-3.0 licence)
    • File:East Sussex outline map with UK.png - QUESTION: doesn't give source for base map (user-created map, PD-licensed, inset map is probably File:Uk_outline_map.png. User:Jza84 is still active, could contact to find out )
    • File:Death of Wat Tyler Froissart.jpg - OK (reproduction of image from 15th century manuscript, out of copyright, original source identified, online source identified, link dead, version in internet archive confirms information, added this link to image description page, correctly tagged with {{pd-art}})
    • File:Aerial photo of Bodiam Castle.jpg - OK (professional aerial photo, link to photographer's website, where image is released under cc-by-sa-2.0)
    • File:Castle Bodiam1 cz.jpg - QUESTION: date 12/12/12 (user-created photo, metadata consistent with this, uploader name consistent with name in metadata, released under cc-by-sa-3.0, resolution of image half the max resolution of the camera)
    • File:Bodiam-Castle.jpg - OK (1906 painting, checked artist date of death, 1917 so out of copyright, added this to image description page, digital image source missing, found same resolution image online, added to image description page, changed tag from pd-old to pd-art, since uploader presumably didn't create image)
    • File:Bodiam Castle fromthe north.jpg - OK (user-created image, image quality consistent with this eg highlights, metadata show digital image produced by a film scanner in a photo lab, username or author and original uploader the same, licensed under GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0)
    • File:File-Bodiam Castle gatehouse.jpg - OK (retouched photo released under cc-by-sa-3.0, original photo identified, professional quality, by professional photographer, username and name in metadata consistent, released under cc-by-sa-3.0 so derivative works allowed)
    • File:Bodiam murder holes.jpg - OK (user-created photo, image quality and metadata consistent with this, username of uploader and author match, released under cc-by-3.0)
    • File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg - QUESTION: does tracing a diagram violate copyright? (source of information given, svg version based on jpg version since deleted, don't know what licensing that had, but both based on map in book, image is traced image-corrected, and recaptioned by uploader, licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL)
  • Sadly, a copy (or tracing) of a copyrighted image falls under the same license as the original. Credit to the creator/uploader for their honesty, but this is not his to license. Dhatfield (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, give me a day to sort this out. I'll scour the local libraries to see if I can find an old plan that's free use. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Bodiam Castle 05.jpg - OK (user-created content, from flickr, still there, still licensed under cc-by-2.0)
    • File:Bodiam interior.jpg - OK (user-created photo, quality of original image consistent, username of uploader "s to the h" consistent with author Sean Hamerton, released as PD, no image metadata)

The images are thus mostly OK. For the East Sussex outline map, I would suggest you contact the creator, User:Jza84, and ask what the source of the base map was (eg did he draw it himself from mapping data, or was it from a PD source, or from a copyrighted source etc). For the image with the strange date, everything else looks OK, I'm not sure why that date was given. For the plan of the castle, you'll need to get the opinion of someone more experienced in copyright issues than me. (A map published in a book would presumably be copyrighted, tracing and modifying would then seem to be a derivative work, unless there are some other principles involved, e.g. the layout of the building is a fact, which is not copyrightable) Dr pda (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Jza84 to ask about the map. The image with the funny date had the meta data with when it was generated, so I've changed it to that. As for the plan, I am not sure. The original image was used with a fair use rationale; who would you recommend consulting for more information? The layout of the walls are factual, however the labelling is at times speculative. Nev1 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest checking with people like User:Jappalang, User:Elcobbola or User:Awadewit for the plan. Also, I've seen Jza84's reply on his talk page; if you or he add to the East Sussex map something like what he did for the Manchester map, that would satisfy me. I'm also fine with changing that funny date to the one in the image metadata. Dr pda (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just expanded the description of the map and will now go and ask someone about the plan. Nev1 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't get passed the first paragraph regarding criterion 1a.

  • The grid reference belongs in the infobox, or anywhere other than the first sentence.
  • What is a "watery landscape"? A landscape containing water features? A bog? Klunky and vague.
  • "...display was an important aspect of the castle as well as defence." Perhaps you meant "...display was as important an aspect of the castle as defence." Or perhaps the entire could be rephrased to scan better.
  • Replace "home" with "residence".

I don't intend to block with an oppose since I am not on often enough, but with four complaints in the first paragraph of the most important part of the article, I believe this deserves a thorough copyedit. Dhatfield (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your points in order:
  1. The grid reference hardly breaks the flow because it is at the end of a sentence, but I have moved it to the infobox.
  2. I'm not seeing the problem to be honest; if a landscape is watery, there's lots of water. "Watery landscape" is a phrase used in studies of the castle, so to suggest that it does not fit in with criterion 1a (good prose) is surprising.
  3. As explained earlier in this FAC, the phrasing is deliberated. There is a popular image in the public eye that castles were exclusively military institutions, and it is often a surprise to learn that they were social symbols. We cannot know if Bodiam was meant for display as much as defence because we cannot read minds (Johnson spends quite a long time talking about this in his book Behind the Castle Gate.
  4. Why?
I encourage you to read the rest of the article; any valid points will be addressed. Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I massaged the prose a bit and feel it flows well now. Marvellous read. Comments beginning a readthrough. I'll jot some notes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By 1378, Edward Dalyngrigge owned the manor of Bodiam by virtue of marrying into a land-owning family - this section just sorta jumps into it. The first sentence should have a word or two explaining who Dalyngrigge was -a local nobleman/nouveau riche?
I've added a sentence] on who Dalyngrigge was. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... many castles were slighted.. "slighted"? Interesting use of the verb.....?
Slighting is a technoical term which means to render a fortification undefendable. It's explained in the previous sentece (sort of) and there's a wikilink: "...when Bodiam Castle was dismantled (slighted)..." I know nothing of the origin of the word, but suspect it may be linked with the meaning to insult or be insulted, but that's another article... Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [14].

Carucage edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because after a very thorough copyedit by Malleus AND Parrot of Doom (I'm moving up in the world, two copyeditors!), plus a peer review and a GAN, I feel this is as ready as it gets. Instead of a bishop OR a horse OR a nobleman, you get a ... medieval tax. It was an experiment that didn't work out, only collected six times, but still an interesting little tidbit on the way to more "modern" systems of taxation. It wouldn't work any more, as we don't usually have the ox-teams this tax was based on! No, I don't know how it was pronounced, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It seems very short, 9736 B or 1658 words readable prose size. Does this really cover the key sources? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was only collected six times. Google Scholar search for carucage+history+taxation, which includes quite a number of brief mentions. Before the Royal Historical Society shut down their free bibliographical database, I also consulted it for any sources I might be missing. The important sources are the Barrett articles, Harriss' work on finance, the Mitchell Taxation work, and Warren and Richardson/Sayres works on Government. I didn't consult Norgate's 1888 work on the tax, as it's quite frankly out of date. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it could be fleshed out some more, perhaps with a little background explanation of some of the terms and the context, because it's quite difficult to understand if you're not already familiar with the period. For example, "The last carucage was imposed in 1224, after which revenue was collected by levying taxes on moveable property instead of land." It's not clear what that means. And "Despite its intermittent use ... the main source of royal income during those years remained scutage, feudal dues, and royal rights such as justice." What are "royal rights such as justice"? It would be helpful if terms that people can't be expected to know could be expanded just a little as you tell the story. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can work on that in a little bit, but there is a limit to how much can be explained without getting into wild tangents. That's how this article started, I needed to explain 'carucage' for Hubert Walter, and it just kept... growing. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other spots that you did not understand or felt needed explaining? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to point to any other specific instances, because it's a feeling throughout that you're assuming a lot of background knowledge, or assuming that your reader will constantly have to click off the page. Second sentence, for example, "It was a replacement for the danegeld, last imposed in 1162, which had become difficult to collect." Why had it become difficult to collect? And last sentence of the first para introduces the idea of "moveable property," without saying what it means. Second para of lead—most tax came from royal and feudal rights, again without saying what those terms mean. Last sentence of lead: it was used in part to pay King Richard's ransom: what's that? And so on throughout the article. The narrative needs to be a story that the average intelligent reader can grasp without having to click off the page too often.

    If it's too awkward to expand on a term in the sentence it's first used, you could include a link to lower sections that expand the key terms, or the key parts of the context. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to second the above remarks that there's not enough of the big picture here. In particular, the last paragraph of Legacy is mostly a paragraph about the background: some of it should be moved to Background and greatly expanded (in particular please expand "the main source of royal income during those years remained scutage, feudal dues such as feudal reliefs or feudal aids, and royal rights such as the profits from the justice system"), so that the reader knows how carucage fits into the bigger picture of medieval taxation. I don't know anything about medieval taxation, so I picked a source about carucage at random, read a tiny bit of it, and came up with the following questions that aren't clearly addressed by the article:

  • Was carucage intended as general revenue, or was it raised for specific projects? If so, what were the projects, exactly?
  • Was carucage imposed as part of a consensual process between monarch and subjects, or was it arbitrarily imposed by the monarch without any formal or informal say by the subjects?
  • Approximately what percentage of the royal revenue during the period came from carucage, as opposed to other sources of revenue? Even if we don't know exact figures, order of magnitude would be quite helpful. Was it 50% 10%? 1%? 0.1%?
  • Was carucage considered a state tax, or a personal tax for the king's benefit only, or both?
  • How was carucage related to tallage, or to the military service that scutage was supposed to be a substitute for?
  • Were serfs subjects to carucage directly, or were they subject only indirectly via their lords? Did the lords pass on the carucage to their serfs?

The source I used to come up with these questions (and which answers some of them) is: Yoram Barzel; Edgar Kiser (2002). "Taxation and voting rights in medieval England and France". Rationality Soc. 14 (4): 473–507. doi:10.1177/1043463102014004003.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is no real division between revenue at the time. As explained, each carucage was usually raised for a specific purpose, but didn't go into a separate fund or anything. (And it's mentioned what project/task/etc. each individual carucage was raised for in the article) As it explains in the Under Henry III section, one time out of six, the consent of the council was gained for the collection, otherwise it was just imposed. We don't really know, as we don't have a total figure for all royal revenue, we have guesses, but not all royal income went into our records, so most historians don't speculate. We just don't know. Tallage as it's named was not really collected in England, but it's a tax on movable goods. Otherwise, how do you mean "related to scutage" ... they were two different types of revenue. Serfs by definition did not own land, so no, they were not subject to the tax. Quite likely they ended up paying, but we don't know whether that happened or not. I do not have access to that article (its not yet in the university i use's sub package) so if you could send a copy my way, that would be helpful. But some of this is somewhat anachronistic, there isn't a division between state/personal taxes at this time, quite honestly. Or at least most historians I've read don't consider it so. (Maybe this author is, but...I've never heard of either of these two authors, so I'd want to know more about the article before committing myself.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no real division between revenue at the time" Yes, and this info should be in the article, since this context is not obvious to the non-expert. Similarly for several of the other points you make: they're good points, and should be in the article. Anyway, again, I'm no expert, but Barzel & Kizer 2002 (which unfortunately I lack the rights to pass along a copy of) does talk about tallage (and, for what it's worth, Tallage says that tallage was collected in England) so it appears that tallage should be looked into. Barzel & Kizer agrees that there aren't reliable figures, but says (p. 481) "In the 12th and early 13th centuries, revenues from crown lands and customary feudal prerogratives accounted for roughly 75–80% of rulers' expenses in both England and France (Mann 1986 [ISBN 052131349X]: 418; Baldwin 1986 [ISBN 0520073916]: 156). The other 20–25% came from various other forms of taxation, some semi-customary and some consensual (discussed below). The revenues served both the ruler's private expenditures and those of the state; the latter at the ruler's discretion." Not being an expert I'm not sure what I mean by scutage, other than from what I can tell it was a substitute for armed service, and the idea that taxes were essentially a way to finance wars (one way or another) is a point that needs to be made more clearly, if I'm understanding the situation correctly. It is surely obvious to an expert that serfs didn't pay carucage, but it wasn't obvious to this non-expert; I think it'd help to state in the article who paid it, and who didn't, as long as there are reliable sources to back this up of course. A typical reader who views this article will have the modern view of taxation (including national, regional, and local taxes), and I expect that such a reader will misunderstand many of the terms in this article by interpreting them in the modern way. Matters aren't helped when the lead says that carcucage was a "land tax" but the body says "collection of the carucage was actually a feudal aid, rather than a tax". In short, more context is needed for the non-expert, and an introductory section summarizing medieval taxation and how carcucage fits into it would be great help. Eubulides (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the intro to taxation (ideally there would be a Taxation in medieval England article.. .note the redlink) It'll be probably tomorrow, I just had a rather... LARGE project dumped on my lap at one of my side-jobs. The problem of course, is that when that redlink becomes blue, the intro in this article will be redundant. (Hell, it might make THAT article... gees...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But but but... the article has ALT text! Aren't you going to notice that??? (smiles at Eubulides) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't notice my recent ALT text either. I think it was the first time I did it without whining, and my reward was ... silence. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is golden. And I liked what you wrote below, about "I am the king, and I get my income from feudal rights, the judicial courts, profits from other royal courts, the royal forests, and the Jews": that's good muscular prose and we should see more like that in Wikipedia. The new intro in Background is much better; thanks. (Can you work "I am the king" into that? ...) Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent again) Okay, I've thrown together Taxation in medieval England, which is more indepth than the additonal paragraph I've thrown into Carucage. Mainly, this covers the fact that there is no strict separation between royal and governmental income, relative percentages for revenues in 1130 and 1194. As far as Tallage is concerned, it's not a term much used by my sources... I'll note that our Tallage article has no inline citations, and appears to derive mainly from the 1911 EB, a 1895 article, and the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1905. Any mentions of Tallage in England should probably go in the new article anyway. I've added a line to explicitly state that serfs weren't subject to carucage, and a line on the Templars being bankers (which, took forever to source, since it's "common knowledge" in the field... ) I think this should address most of the concerns? (I cannot believe I wrote ANOTHER article on taxation... blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: single image, File:Medievalplowingwoodcut.jpg, is verifiably in the public domain. I am curious though; how was it identified as "redrawn from the Luttrell Psalter, an illuminated manuscript of c. 1330" (article caption) when the source Mediaeval and Modern History only identified it as coming from a "14th century manuscript"? Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod added the bit about the Luttrell psalter, you'll have to ask him. If he can't source it, I can remove it, obviously, but I assumed he had a source...Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the sort of image art historians are given to describing rather optimistically as "famous" (sigh); the whole page is on the Luttrell Psalter Commons page, or the BL website. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalong, will sourcing the fact to the original image from the Psalter work? or do I need to remove the Psalter bit? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the bit about the Lutrell Psalter into a hidden comment, pending resolution of this matter for sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin and Ealdgyth, above you were wondering about the Templars - they were known for their financial skills, and I think it was pretty usual for them to be involved in tax-collecting (they collected the Saladin tithe in 1188 for the Third Crusade, at least, and I think they were involved in collecting the 1183 tax in Jerusalem, etc). They had become somewhat of an international banking house, because there were no other truly international institutions like them at the time (discounting "the church" in general). I don't know as much as I'd like about the Templars in England, but there are plenty of books about them, if you want to find out more. Adam Bishop (talk)

Thanks, Adam. It would be interesting to add a sentence about that, or maybe link to an article that explains it if we have one. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 11:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do indeed have an article that explains it.. Knights Templar which is linked in the article from Templar Order. Our templar article is actually pretty good, and has a pretty decent paragraph in it about their financial empire. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to add something to the article about it? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will shortly. Just got Taxation in medieval England non-redlinked, which should help. Have to bathe the dog, be back at work shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you added here is very good. I have the same suggestion again, though, about the writing. You write as though your reader already understands the vocabulary. For example, two of the main sources of income were from feudal rights and from the judicial courts. Very few people will understand what that means. I realize you're linking where appropriate, but I think the aim is to keep people on the page as far as possible. It's not that you need to explain endlessly, just that you need to slightly shift the audience you're addressing (in my opinion, which you're free to ignore, of course). :) There's was a famous newspaper editor (so famous that I can't rememer his name), but I think he was the editor of the Washington Post, who had a sign up in the editorial dept for the writers, which said something like, "Remember, they're only 10!" His point was that the best person to write for, and this applies to a great many levels of writing, is a very intelligent 10-year-old, someone who will immediately grasp what you say, but you do need to offer at least a minimal explanation, while avoiding going off on long tangents. That would be the position I'd adopt for this article: addressing a very clever reader who has never heard of most of the expressions you're using, and who doesn't want to have to read a lot of other articles in order to understand this one. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Included in that is this: "The main sources of royal income were: (1) income from the royal estates, (2) income from feudal rights, such as feudal aids or feudal reliefs which derived from the king's position as a feudal overlord, (3) taxation, and (4) the fees and other profits from the royal courts, which were paid to the king." I can't GET much simpler for feudal rights than "which derived from the king's position as a feudal overlord", without going into a mini-essay and off topic. I've added "the judical courts" in #4, which hopefully will make clear what judicial courts means. Some of this is NOT simple subjects. The whole topic of feudal rights isn't going to be easily broken down into a short phrase explanation, sometimes links will just have to do. I do not want to oversimplify and become inaccurate either. Part of the problem is that the whole concept of feudalism is undergoing a historiographical revolution right now, our old understanding of the system is undergoing a rather large controversy, and it's just not possible to go into that much detail. Frankly, since the subject of this article is a tax that isn't connected with feudal rights, I think we've covered it in enough detail and linked to further discussions, so that trying to explain MORE in this article (especially now that I've written a whole article on the overview subject) would be getting off track and subject. I realize you're fascinated, but some things just aren't germaine to the topic, and an extended discussion of the whole topic of feudal rights and the income the English kings derived from them, isn't really needed here. To some degree I understand you want to understand the background, but puffing up this article with long discussion of incomes not even derived from taxation is probably not something that needs to be done. I've bent over backwards here, written another whole article on taxation to give background, and unless you can point me to something about the actual subject of the article that's unclear (and not the related topic of royal revenues) I'm not inclined to continue adding information not related to the topic. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I think a good comparision here would be to some of the more specialized mathematics articles, where we aren't expected to write to a 10-year-old, but someone who has encountered the term in more specialized literature and is looking for a more indepth explanation. See Group (mathematics) or Problem of Apollonius, which is about the level of interest for this topic, quite honestly. You're not going to run into a mention of carucage in the newspaper, you're more likely to see it in an undergrad textbook or the like. Perhaps in one of the better written romance novels, and someone might come here looking for more information. Just because this is a history article doesn't mean it has to be totally dumbed down, we can have highly specialized articles on history subjects just like we do in math or science. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about maths article is true. But I think the point is this: I'm British, I've studied British history, I've been to university, and I've edited some WP articles that touch on the points in your article, but if I were forced at gunpoint to explain precisely what is meant by, "I am the king, and I get my income from feudal rights, the judicial courts, profits from other royal courts, the royal forests, and the Jews," without looking it up, I'd be in trouble. I could give the broadest of brushstrokes, but no more, and I think that applies to almost all of your readership, including the undergraduates who might come here from a textbook. So it depends how many of your readers you want to carry with you. I think that, given that you yourself have a really good grasp of the subject, you'll be surprised at how much you can clarify without dumbing down or becoming too tangential. But again, I want to stress that these are just suggestions. I know it's frustrating, so do feel free to ignore. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. Minor stuff:

  • How about some punctuation in references (i.e. commas separating author, title, and page no.)?
    • There is no need for them (grins). As long as it's consistent, this system has worked fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the book titles really need to be repeated every time for a cite, especially when there is a sources section?
    • Yes, because I prefer it that way. For different works by the same author, I find it much easier to see the shortened title than a meaningless year. Easier to keep separate. This is a style used by historians, and again, as long as its consistent, it works. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 03:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair dos. At least it's not a pony bishop article. ;) RB88 (T) 05:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How about using some images from the kings, or anyone else mentioned in the article? There's a nice one here of John, for example. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one of John can't be used, as there is no source of the image given. And, honestly, what would a medieval illustration add? I'd rather add a coin image, honestly, it would give the feel better. But, quite honestly, I avoid putting images in at FAC because jumping through the sourcing/templating/alt text hoops is a pain and I try to keep it to images that are close to contemporary and relavent. There is a nice File:Richard I pictavinus 722697.jpg shot of a Poitivean coin of Richard I, but since this is an English tax, it's not very relevant. File:Penny-of-henry-III.jpg is a possibility, it's a drawing of a coin, but it's undated, so it's not clear if the coin was contemporary with the tax. When I was doing the taxation article, I hunted for a good Exchequer table manuscript illustration that had enough source information to survive at FAC, but could not find one. In the end, it comes down to .. if I'm going to bother to jump through all the hoops for an image at FAC, it's going to have to add a lot to the article, not just decorate to have a picture or three. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think images help the reader to navigate through the text. They break it up into units, and they'd give the reader a better idea of what we're talking about in terms of the period. The John image is cut from this one, by the way. I take your point about the hoops. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an increasing trend for reviewers to assess articles against their own personal preferences rather than against the FA criteria. Which part of FA criterion 3 is this article in breach of? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the FA criteria boil down to preference, Malleus—what one reviewer might think is well-written, for example, another might think isn't. I think the criteria use to say something about "appropriately illustrated," but I may be misremembering, and anyway, you're right, they don't say anything about that now. Bear in mind that the above was just a comment, not an oppose. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of reviewers interpret them as personal preference, true, but that's not quite the same thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The FAC page is backlogged and slow to load; if any of the above is fully resolved, can it be moved to talk, leaving a link here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deacon's comments: Support. Good work. I think this article would have been better organised thematically rather than chronologically. It would be more work, but the educated general reader would benefit more if there were sections on purposes/origin, collection, conflict and revenue (with tables), and so on. The way it is currently written makes it harder to follow (and I'd bet if it were done that way, you'd have had more feedback by now too!). The chronological structure is also completely pointless as it stands, because there is no development narrative making use of it. But I know it is too late to reorganize, so I will overlook this. :) I'll support then,. Some points however:
Given any choice, I always approach things chronologically. This makes biographies easy for me to write, but other subjects... (My thesis advisor always teased me about this... said I was "old-fashioned") Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The clergy and ecclesiastics resisted Richard's attempt to collect the 1198 carucage from their estates. In response, Richard withdrew the clergy's right to use the royal courts, forcing them to buy the right to do so back for a sum greater than the carucage that had been levied
Would like to read more about that, if your sources have it. Seems like it's worth more than one sentence anyway.
I can't find anything in Gillingham's Richard I about it, and I'm still awaiting delivery of Turner's Richard. The source that I drew the information from, doesn't elaborate any further. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William de Wrotham is designated as receptores carucagii, or receivers of the carucage,<!--plural?--><!-- The source says carucagii, I double checked. Eald --> in official records.<ref name=Tax14/>
receptores carucagii means "receivers of the carucage": I've fixed it to make sense. This part is still a bit choppy though. You'll need to introduce William or something ... just looks like two random sentences put together atm.
Working on phrasing of this... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the King capitulated and recognised the Cistercian immunity from taxation'
Would prefer some kind of rephrasing that doesn't imply that we think such an immunity already existed. Perhaps "agreed to Cistercian immunity"?
Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last carucage was imposed in 1224,[19] after which revenue was collected by levying taxes on moveable, or personal property, instead of land
I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean "after 1224 there was never any other tax based on land"? Seems unlikely phrased as broadly as that. And it goes on to say Taxes on moveable property were first assessed in 1207, which seemingly contradicts the above sentence, as the latter could imply that such tax wasn't levied until after 1224.
Reworded, see if it works better now? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And
medieval chronicler
You might as well say just chronicle if you are gonna say this. 1) "Medieval" covers more than a millennium of history, 2) what English chronicler isn't medieval? 3) specifying the century or decade or something is actually useful. I made relevant alterations for the article, but I thought I'd make a point of it since some of your other FACs have done this too. :)
Good work again! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, Eubulides, is there anything else that needs to be done to garner ya'lls support? Or are you two only planning on making comments? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just sat down to read it again, and tried to tweak the lead a little, but I'm confused about some of the vocabulary. Lead says, "Carucage was introduced by King Richard I in 1194, and was sporadically assessed during the following two reigns. It was collected for the last time in 1224, and was replaced by taxes on income and personal property. The tax was levied only six times between 1194 and 1224, and never raised as much as other taxes."
Assessed, collected, and levied -- are they being used to mean the same thing here? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on the talk page of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still find I'm having to click off the page a lot to understand the article. I know some clicking is always going to be necessary, but there's a lot of it in this article, so that reading it is hard work.

  • For example, what does this mean? "The carucage was raised in order to pay John's feudal relief—payment due on inheriting lands—for his 1199 inheritance of lands in France.[20] The relief had been set by King Philip II of France at 20,000 marks." SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've amended to "feudal relief - payment to a feudal overlord on inheriting lands - for his 1199 inheritance of lands in France. The relief had been set by King Philip II of France, John's overlord, at 20,000 marks.". I had to guess at what you didn't understand though, because you didn't tell me what parts of those two sentences were confusing. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence, "In medieval England there was no clear separation between the government and the king's own household, and the governmental structure grew out of the royal household." This makes it sound as though there was a central government, just not an independent one. I think you need to flesh out slightly what you mean by "government" here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded that to "In medieval England there was no clear separation between the government and the king's own household, and while the central governmental organs grew out of the royal household, it wasn't until late in the medieval period that government could be said to be mostly separate from the royal household. During the late 12th and early 13th century, taxes could be paid either to the government or the royal household, and all types of taxes and other royal income could be used for either governmental expenses or the personal expenses of the king." which if you think needs copyediting let me know. The point is that money paid to the government or the king was fungiable, and could be used for any purpose, governmental or personal. (Later in medieval England the theory grew up that the kings would support themselves out of the income from royal estates and that taxation wouldn't be necessary except in extraordinary circumstances, which led to Parliament getting the power of the purse... but that's AFTER the time covered by this tax ... thankfully. ) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what extent was there any central government, apart from the royal household, at that time? SlimVirgin TALK contribs
  • If you mean any government that didn't shade into the royal household? Not much. The exchequer is no longer wandering around with the king, but it's still directly responsible to the king and all the appointees are controlled by the king pretty much. Same for the Chancery. There is no real Wardrobe yet. The great seal is the king's seal. It's only when you get to the point where the Privy seal and Wardrobe start to detatch from the Chancery (which held the Great Seal) and the Exchequer under Edward I that you can start speaking of a "separate" government and even then... Parliament is somewhat separate by the later part of Henry III's reign (Simon de Montfort) but... not in this time frame. in this time, there is no "central government" as we would think of it, although we're no longer in the period of the early medieval period where there is nothing but the royal household either. Some historians think that the time of separation was earlier, some think it was later, but the important point here is that money might go to the exchequer or the royal household interchangably, and that money, once in the either place might either pay for what we'd call "governmental expenses" such as wars, or might pay for personal expenses, such as royal upkeep or gifts to the king's friends. The main thrust of this paragraph is to show that the governmental situation isn't like modern times or even late medieval times (such as the 15th century during the Wars of the Roses). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make more sense, in that case, to say there was no real separation between the king's household and the exchequer, rather than the govt? When I first read that sentence, it jumped out that there wasn't really a government in any sense we would recognize, so it seemed misleading. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, but would you want some of the additions I've added cut then? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may just be me, but I feel it's quite unclear: "In medieval England there was no clear separation between the government and the king's own household, and while the central governmental organs grew out of the royal household, it wasn't until late in the medieval period that government could be said to be mostly separate from the royal household. During the late 12th and early 13th century, taxes could be paid either to the government or the royal household, and all types of taxes and other royal income could be used for either governmental expenses or the personal expenses of the king. [16] What does the source say? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source is about four pages of discussion on the development of the government from 1066 to 1485, so it'd take a bit to show you. The book is basically an encyclopedia of topics connected with medieval england, discussing them for an high undergrad level student, basically. Saul's an expert on later medieval England, so the articles are overviews, but for this information, it's perfect, because it's summarizing what is generally agreed upon. How about we do this in the article "In medieval England in the 12th and 13th century there was no clear separation between the king's household and the treasury.(ref to saul) The main sources of royal income were income from the royal estates..." since I introduced the rest of it under what I thought you were confused about, but apparantly i was wrong. Does that make it clearer? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds better. The ref is Saul p. 115. What does he say on that page that's relevant to this? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) "In the Midle Ages the king was the personification of government, and the branches of his household were the first government ministries. This was why medieval government retained a domestic and informal quality right down to the 16th century." is on p. 115, but since we're discussing the treasury also, I've extended the ref to cover the financial arrangements, which he discusses on p. 116 and 117. Since the whole section only goes one more page, I've just cited it to the entire entry on "government" which covers pages 115 to 118. I've gone ahead and made the change in the article also. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So what he's saying is that the king's household was the government. Does he use the same language about the treasury? If yes, we shouldn't say "no clear separation," if in fact the treasury was the king's treasury de jure and de facto. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By this time, there exists the Exchequer which is "parked" at Westminster and handles the audits of most of the revenue. The king also has a household treasury, but the Exchequer no longer travels with the king, so it's ... sorta ... separate. How the Exchequer was "parked" by this time is what Saul discusses on pages 116 and 117. Using the terms "de jure" and "de facto" is a dichotomy that is much more modern than this time frame though. "No clear separation" means that there is the start of separation at this period in time, but it's not total yet. Saul just spends almost a page discussing it in detail, which would be fine in the Exchequer article but.. not here. (It's two pages becaue it spreads across the pages, half on each page, about.). Trust me, if I'd oversimplified or got something wrong, Deacon would have hauled me up short, he's not shy about that at all. (Just look at the trials of the damned he's put me through with Urse d'Abetot or Hemming's Cartulary, but it's always worthwhile.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • John land inheritance reference: 1200 in lead, 1199 in the text. Which thing happened in which year? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He assessed the tax in 1200, he inherited in 1199 (when Richard died). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just the terminology. it's his "relief" payment to his overlord in order to inherit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article would benefit from being gone through once more, and expanding sentences or passages that are unclear, sourcing it all clearly, and sticking closely to the sources and what they say. Just to give one example: "Under Henry's son, King Richard I, the geld was replaced by the carucage, and was established by Hubert Walter, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar of England." What does it mean for it to be "established" by Herbert Walter? There are lots of sentences like this. I think there needs to be a general fleshing out of these tight sentences, perhaps with a history student in mind as your reader, but someone who's never studied this period. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply to this in the morning because quite honestly, my initial reaction is to withdraw the nomination if you want me to explain what the word "established" means, because I find that to be a very weird concern. What ELSE does established mean but that he initiated the carucage? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean for the Archbishop to initiate it or establish it? What does an Archbishop do when he establishes a tax, and why would he do it? Why was he representing the king? It needs to be expressed in a way that makes it meaningful.
I had stopped commenting here a few days ago, because it was obvious that you didn't agree with my input, which is fair enough. But then you asked me to comment again, so I read it again today, wanting to support, but found I couldn't. The reason I want to support is that it's a nice, succinct article, and I learned something from it, and that's refreshing compared to the hulks that are often submitted at FAC (mine included). The reason I feel I can't support is that it's too succinct, to the point of sometimes appearing not quite right. It needs to come alive a bit more, so that people not already familiar with it can understand it. It also needs to stick closely to the sources, because (apart from the accuracy issue) that will help it to come alive. It needs to be written to minimize the number of times an intelligent reader who knows nothing about this will have to click off the page to another article in order to understand it. I'm sorry if that makes you want to withdraw, and I very much hope you don't, but it's my honest opinion, intended to be constructive. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, that bit about the archbishop makes it clear WHAT part of the sentence you found unclear. Before, you didn't explain that it was the archbishop reference that confused you, just saying "What does it mean for it to be "established" by Herbert Walter?" since you emphasized "established" i assumed that was the difficulty. HW was both Justiciar AND Archbishop of Canterbury. It wasn't his office as ABC that led to him establishing the carucage, it was the Justiciar bit. I've cut the ABC refernce (which I type on autopilot, quite honestly, since I end up typing it so much.. "Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury" is just something I type a LOT, so I always include the ABC part.) Hopefully, minus that, it's clearer now. To be fair, you were being a bit TOO succinct yourself. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the stuff below before the above, but got an edit conflict with you when I tried to save, so I'll just post what I'd written already, but won't continue unless you say you'd like to hear more.

I've gone through again, and added and subtracted bits, hoping to avoid confusions where information was given that wasn't needed (I've cut the bit about scutage, since it was only one of the revenues that the carucage was supposed to supplement and put in place a more general (and hopefully less confusing) "Carucage was an attempt to secure new sources of revenue to supplement existing sources of income." which is accurate without introducing a minor bit that's of interest to historians but only serves to confuse the general reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other unclear sentences:

  • "The main sources of royal income were income from the royal estates, income from feudal rights—such as feudal aids or feudal reliefs, which derived from the king's position as a feudal overlord, taxation, and the judicial courts—which included the fees and other profits from the royal courts that were paid to the king." I think you need to explain feudal aids and reliefs—as it stands, unclear terms are explained with reference to other unclear terms. Also, the sentence structure isn't clear e.g. "the king's position as a feudal overlord, taxation and the jud. courts". Also, how are you distinguishing in this sentence between the judicial courts and the royal courts?
  • This one, was introduced today during a copyedit by someone else, I thought I got all the things that got scrambled, but apparantly not. It's now back to what it should be "The main sources of royal income were income from the royal estates, income from feudal rights (such as feudal aids or feudal reliefs, which derived from the king's position as a feudal overlord), income from taxation, and income from the judicial courts (which included the fees and other profits from the royal courts that were paid to the king)." which hopefully is a bit clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention exemptions to the danegeld in the lead and text, but what the exemptions were or why they existed aren't explained, or the difficulties there were in collecting it. A few words of explanation would help. And why was the carucage easier to collect, or regarded as easier?
  • The exemptions just piled up, so a new tax without all the old exemptions would have been easier to collect. And people being gullible, they might pay a new tax that is seen as more fairly assessed easier. But the sources don't say exactly what the difficulties were. Huscroft says "The tax was also difficult to collect and unpopular, and there are signs that it was producing ever smaller yields." And the king could grant exemptions to favoured folks, pretty much. We're a bit in the dark during Henry I's reign, as we only have one Pipe Roll and no other financial records to speak of. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response, Richard withdrew the clergy's right to use the royal courts, forcing them to buy the right back for a sum greater than the carucage that had been levied." What did that right consist of?
  • The right to use the royal courts. This wasn't something that was an inalienable right at the time, the Angevin kings were despots in a way that the later Tudor's only dreamed of. This is before Magna Carta, so if the king said "no you can't get justice from my courts" ... well, you were out of luck. I've added "forcing them to buy that judicial right back" in. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I think that perhaps too heavy a burden has been placed on this article to explain the medieval English social, legal, and taxation systems, which are not well dealt with in the articles that, in a perfect world, would be supporting this one. Carucage is an article about one tax, collected only six times in the 30 years between 1194 and 1224. I doubt if a more informative and better researched account could be found online anywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been watching this article since it was nominated. I am familiar with the topic of medieval England (though not to this extent) and don't find the article difficult to read. It's a comprehensive explanation of a single tax that replaced a different tax (danegeld) and within the scope of the topic, treated and developed well. I have one single suggestion: I'd remove the "only" from the first para in the Henry III section. His father collected once, his uncle twice, so in fact Henry III collected the most. This is the type of article I'd want to find somewhere; preferably on Wikipedia! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand SlimVirgin's questions; I'm a grad student in medieval history and I find English administration extremely complex and confusing. There are rows and rows of shelves in the library dedicated to it, so it's not easy to summarize it in an article like this. I think it has been summarized well, but perhaps only for a person who already has some background in the subject; I don't think that is a problem though, because is a random person ever going to want to randomly know about the carucage? Probably not. Having said that, there is one bit that could be clarified - why did the Cistercians claim to be exempt from taxation? I suppose they recognized no authority but the Pope or at least the head of their own order, but I wasn't sure. Also, maybe this is a bit off-topic, but did England's technical status as a papal fief in the early thirteenth century have any effect on the carucage? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have run across absolutely nothing that mentions anything aobut the papal fief status impacting on the carucage. I'll dig a bit into the Cistercian bit, but I'm not sure it's easily answerable. Digging now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon digging a bit more, it seems (and I stress seems here) that they claimed it under the 1179 Church council that forbade secular taxation of the clergy. Note that no source says why they claimed a exemption in the case of THIS tax or what the exemption entailed, just that they claimed it, but had no luck. I found nothing in Knowles' Monastic Order in England, but I do not have his three volume history of monasticism so I don't have total access to the nitty-gritty details. Madden "Business Monks" Catholic Historical Review (1963) just says that the Cisterican's claimed an exemption from taxation, and implies it was from the 1179 canons. I don't feel safe enough to make the leap, since Madden doesn't explicily say so, just... implies it for other taxation, not this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well that's all that jumped out at me, so I support. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made some trivial edits. This was partly to improve the last sentence of the lead, but I also hyphenated ploughteam, which I'm happy for you to revert. (incidentally, I bet Americans love the highly logical BE spelling of "plough" {: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [17].

Second Test, 1948 Ashes series edit

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Another of the 1948 Ashes Tests, this one was held at Lord's and set a new record for a Test match attendance in England. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support- Generally excellent and certainly comprehensive. Very readable and engaging. One or two points which could be clarified.
    • Is there any mileage in the background in commenting on England's change of strategy for this Test? They adopted a very negative defensive strategy for the first Test but went more for attack in this Test. Bill Bowes, a journalist by then, wrote about this at length in his autobiography and blamed (for he opposed it) the strategy on Walter Robins, the chairman of selectors. E.g. selection of Coxon and Wright, dropping of Young, more attacking play. However, not sure if anyone but Bowes says this.
Added this myself and a few more bits from Bowes.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bradman received a loud reception from the crowd" Presumably a positive reception?
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The century "erased a poor run of form". Not too sure about the word "erased" rather than "ended".
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Miller did offering a shot" Should this say "did not offer a shot"?
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edrich "playing across the line": does this need explaining for the non-cricketer?
Done and added dicdef in List of cricket terms YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although Yardley was very much a part time bowler, he had a faintly unbelievable run of success in this series and the last one. Is this worth a mention?
I did find it unusual because when I saw that he was England's second leading wicket-taker for the series and had the second lowest average of all players, I checked his profile and saw that he averaged about 0.6 of a wicket per game. I can add the raw data, and you have the pundit's comment, I hope, as the Australian's didn't bother to note it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only comment I could find related to the 46-47 series. I think the stats cover it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this Test, Coxon and Compton came to blows in the dressing room, although details are scarce. I know of at least one book which mentions some details. Could this be added?
Added this myself.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reaction to the match from the press, e.g. critical of England?--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put in Wisden's comment on result and Bowes verdict. Added it at the end, not sure if it works there.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are attendance figures available for each day? Any explanation for the record attendance?
I couldn't find any daily figures, but nothing specific for the reason, except the general popularitry. added YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that the article is well written and comprehensive. It is well researched; would it benefit from at least mentioning Wisden's viewpoint? I notice Wisden is not referenced and would be one of the major sources. Sorry, my mistake! Lots of Wisden there.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Another great article in this series; I've pretty much come to expect high quality in these articles by now. Prose and sourcing both seem up to scratch. (Note that I made a few cleanup edits recently) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should average be linked for the non cricket followers? - as many may not know that if you get a not out it doesn't get counted as an out in your average - or is that overkill?
  • What's the point of leaving images in the article if they aren't to be displayed because of copyright reasons? Seems silly to me - no big deal though.
  • Overlinking: On a quick glance I see that bouncer is linked twice and is also linked for short ball. There may be others, if so swipe 'em.
Removed double link. I used rpt links for synonyms, as the outsider wouldn't know this, and could get confused, and using the same word over and over wouldnt be good prose. Average linked, an oversight YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YM, the numbers running together here look very messy in the TOC-- it took me a while to realize there were day/dates there, not part of the TOC:

  • 3 24 June: Day One
  • 4 25 June: Day Two
  • 5 26 June: Day Three
  • 6 28 June: Day Four
  • 7 29 June: Day Five

What if you switched them to this?

  • 3 Day one: 24 June
  • 4 Day two: 25 June:
  • 5 Day three: 26 June
  • 6 Day four: 28 June
  • 7 Day five: 29 June

Also, I think there's too much uppercase on the Days, per WP:MSH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can change this on the whole series YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [18].

James Whiteside McCay edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article on an Australian politician and general of the Great war. If you ever wondered if there were any politicians present at Gallipoli, here is one. However his career as a general was marred by disasters, giving his biography a tragic tone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
    • Current ref 58 (Honours...) lacks a publisher
      • Done.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - “Ester, who could speak seven languages, was also known as a brilliant mind.” Either remove this sentence, or clarify in which context The Argus calls her “a brilliant mind.” This sounds like the typical phrase a thirties newspaper would tuck in to a obituary.
Is it known why he destroyed his papers, and why he wanted a non-military funeral?
What about adding a “Legacy” section to the end of the article?
See, for example Samuel Adams. Obviously it won't be as long, but something along the same lines. The Ministry (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ministry (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Supported this well-written/cited/structured article in MilHist ACR and pretty well ready to support here as well, but first:

  • He also served on a panel that deliberated on the future structure of the Army, was chairman of the Fair Profits Commission, the War Service Homes Scheme of the Repatriation Commission, and of its Disposals Board. This is a bit of a mouthful, and I'm not even sure I know exactly what it's saying, so before suggesting any rewording can I confirm it means that as well as chairman of the Fair Profits Commission he was:
    • Chairman of the Fair Profits Commission,
    • Chairman of the War Service Homes Scheme that was part of the Repatriation Commission, and
    • Chairman of the Disposals Board that was part of the Repatriation Commission?
      • Yes, that's right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, reworded to something that's a little longer but I think makes it clearer (might still be improved). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the References section, Charles Bean, Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918, Canberra, and Australian War Memorial don't need to be linked more than once. Also don't think they need retrieval dates like web pages, as they're simply online copies of published books. Also also, do we need McKay the author linked and hence bolded?
    • The point is that the references can then be lifted and re-used in other articles. If we prune the links, they cannot, and would need to be marked up again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that and often copy/paste these things myself but not too hard to then give it the once-over and tweak things. I'm not a MOS fanatic so no opposing on those grounds but if others complain, remember you heard it here first... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a nice-to-have, not a necessity, but any choice quote(boxes) or vaguely related images that can be inserted to break up the grey stuff from Western Front onwards?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (Pending support)

call me old fashioned, but I always thought The Reverend should be capitalized (it's a title).
  • Not the "the" unless it is the first word in a sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His predecessor, Senator Anderson Dawson, had chaired a committee that had produced a detailed report that recommended the abolition of the post of General Officer Commanding Australian Military Forces and the creation of a Council of Defence, a Naval Board and a Military Board. Could you rewrite this so there are fewer thats? (perhaps none). His predecessor, x, had chaired a commitee producing a report recommending the abolition... The whole paragraph is chock full of "thats"
(comment) his military career ran concurrently with his legal and political career?
  • Yes, that's correct. The three are separated somewhat in the article for clarity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the guy he replaced as Lt. colonel was sacked because he supported McCay!! That's taking the apolitical military to a new level!
  • The guy was also a schoolteacher, so he had to front the Minister for Education... McCay again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
when you mention someone like Charles Bean, you might qualify him, saying, The Australian Journalist, Charles Bean, but not wikilinking Australian and Journalist.

Generally, very nice, though. I'd have liked a bit longer of the legacy section, but if the debate is just heating up, perhaps there isn't much on it yet.

  • More like the coals being raked over. We need a military historian to look at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But nice nice job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Just nit-picking about "Allegiance" in the infobox. It's kind of unencyclopedic to ascribe his inner thoughts, attitudes to a flagicon, isn't it? I think you can't go beyond his citizenship and employment in the military.
    • It's the standard box. I presume it was debated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed a few chain links (the reader will click on "Ballynure" if anything at all, certainly not County Antrim or Ireland. The Ballynure article provides links to both of those more general articles anyway. "Dux" is a common term that English speakers are meant to know. WP isn't a dictionary. Can you do a thorough audit of the links to focus readers on the many valuable ones?
    • No, "dux" is a cultural reference. They don't have them in the US. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria"—isn't this a very technical way of saying he was a barrister and solicitor? Some readers may think he actually worked for the Supreme Court. We don't need to introduce those hair-splittings here, do we?
    • They don't have them in the US either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE don't link "Roman Catholic". How many billion humans are Catholic? It does not warrant a link. It's just not useful to the topic.

Tony (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I think the article is comprehensive and well-written, else Tony would have opposed the prose I guess. Do you know what his major in his BA was? It said his MA was maths, was his BA about maths? As a MA is relatively high level, do we know what maths he did his project/focus on? Statistics? Applied maths? Hydrodynamic modelling? Pure maths? Number theory? There are some dash glitches that I'll just do myself for you YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wray recounts what he studied in first and second year of his BA but not the final year. It only states "Mathematics" for his MA. The biographer used McCay's academic transcript from the University of Melbourne. I could try contacting him. (The University charges thirty bucks.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above - the prose is crisp and clear (very military, what ho!) and nice to read. Comprehensive and covers controversy in a neutral and balanced manner. Any idea which type of cancer he succumbed to? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wray says "a cancer of the chest affecting the heart". To me, that means metastatic lung cancer. Official cause of death was renal failure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky, be nice to assume but better to err on the side of safety I guess. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I fixed a typo and a few punctuation errors; one tiny fix still needed: is it Esther or Ester? Altogether this is in very good shape—a nice read, well sourced, and no style problems I can see. Maralia (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esther. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [19].

John Diefenbaker edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria, after the peer review. This is an article about a man who became Prime Minister of Canada after losing five elections in a row, and who, after finally being elected to Parliament, repeatedly lost leadership races. Even when he got the leadership, no one expected him to actually lead his party to victory. When he did, in 1957, it was an upset so huge that magazines printed that his opponents had won (Canada's "Dewey Beats Truman" moment). Then he led the Tories on an election campaign a year later that resembled something between a crusade and a revival meeting, and won the largest majority in terms of percentage of seats ever. Unhappily, he couldn't live up to it, but still led a band of true believers into his 80s, making life miserable for both major parties. I'd like to thank Bzuk and Connormah for their help getting this one ready. I think Dief the Chief is well ready to enter the canon of FA article subjects.Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently at GAN, why didn't you let it become a Good article first? warrior4321 04:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted it to get a review, either GA or PR, when it was reviewed at PR, I found that sufficient. Brianboulton is not only an excellent writer, he is a fine reviewer. And GA is backed up for over a month on the political articles ...--Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, GA is not a necessary step prior to FAC (and not always a necessary step for experienced FA writers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Sandy. I merely wanted some feedback, and with PR and GA both a bit backed up, was hedging my bets as to which would get me there first.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is good (thanks), except for two things. First, a visually impaired reader will be left clueless as to what Diefenbaker looked like, despite the presence of a dozen images of Diefenbaker. Please describe his visual appearance in the alt text for the first image File:Diefmontreal.jpg: the square face, strong jaw, firm lips with frown line, short dark-and-grey hair cut short on sides but short-medium and wavy on top, etc. Keep the "penetrating stare": that's a good detail; also mention he's in suit and tie and holds a paper at waist-level. Second, for later portraits, you can assume the reader knows what Diefenbaker looks like and can simply say "Diefenbaker" without re-describing him (or using generic terms like "subject of the portrait"; just say "Diefenbaker"), except please briefly describe the differences in appearance (and in particular that hair in File:Diefenbaker3358.jpg, wow!). For more advice and examples, please see WP:ALT#Portraits. Eubulides (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is this a change for the alt text rules? I thought we weren't supposed to name people.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That part of the alt text guideline has been there for six months or so. Generally speaking alt text shouldn't contain proper names, yes. But if an alt text entry describes (say) Greta Garbo's appearance in some detail, and the image's caption says that it's Garbo, then later images can just say "Garbo" (assuming the appearance is similar); this mimicks the experience of sighted readers who may not know what Garbo looked like until after they've seen the first image, and who afterwards can be expected to recognize her in later pictures. There's an example of this in WP:ALT #Proper names (look for "Garbo") and it's also briefly discussed under WP:ALT#Portraits. Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, then. Dief seemed to look more or less the same except for his (I agree, unusual) appearance in law school and the final photos post-PMShip where he has visibly aged. I'll play with it. Let me know if there's a problem, either here or better yet on my talk or the article talk page. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the alt text reads very well now. I made one little tweak to remove the proper name from the first image. Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In notes but not refs: Diefenbaker 1976; English 1993; Smith 1953; Peden 1978. • Ling.Nut 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All were the result of typos, and have been corrected now. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three. I've made corrections to most of the images (be careful of malformed templates, e.g. [20] and [21]), but have not resolved the following:
    • File:John Diefenbaker Signature.svg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (i.e. from what source was it digitalized?)
    • File:Diefenbaker3358.jpg, File:Dief1939.jpg, File:Johndiefenbaker.jpg and File:Diefcommons.jpg - All need licenses and/or information indicating copyright status in the US. {{PD-Canada-photo}} addresses only status in Canada; images must be shown to be PD in the US as well. File:Dief1939.jpg, for example, would be expected to be PD as a foreign work published between 1923 and 1977 without compliance with US formalities and is in the public domain in its source country as of 1.1.1996.
    • File:Diefportrait.jpg - This photo appears to be a derivative work of the portrait, which seems too prominent to be considered de minimis. Presumably the portrait was "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department"; if this is indeed the case, it should just have a supplementary crown copyright license. Эlcobbola talk 15:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sliced File:Diefportrait.jpg, since the painting is less than 50 years old, presumably even Crown Copyright would be a problem. File:Diefenbaker3358.jpg, File:Dief1939.jpg I've added additional information to show that they were public domain in Canada in 1996. Unhappily, I don't believe the remaining two were in the public domain on 1.1.1996 because they were then subject to the fifty year rule and so I've commented them out. I am not an expert on image copyright and if you see a way of salvaging these, please let me know. The image of Diefenbaker pointing is iconic and he used it on the front cover of the first volume of his memoirs, but with so many photos of Dief out there, I really can't justify it as fair use. As for the signature, I've asked User:Connormah, who uploaded it, to put in his source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a long shot, but perhaps contacting the LAC would yield information to support PD status in the US? I'll look to see whether I can find anything for those images. Эlcobbola talk 23:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the House of Commons regarding the painting. It was government commissioned, and copyright resides in the House of Commons. That means it will not be PD even in Canada until 2019. Oh well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new signature with a source image for the tracing. Connormah (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Another top-quality political biog from the Wehwalt stable. A surprisingly interesting and involving story about a man not so much forgotten in the UK as hardly heard of (I initially thought he was a German footballer). I said my piece at some length at the peer review, and most of my suggestions were acted on. With the source issues evidently settled, the article ticks all the FA boxes for me. Could be TFA on Canada Day (1 July I think). Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I had heard the name and knew he was the sole PC island in a sea of Liberal PMs, but I didn't know much about him until I saw an exhibit on him at Regina airport. Turns out to be quite a character. Yes, I am hopeful that on 1 July, as the song goes, "Dief Will Be the Chief Again", if only for 24 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "image" issues in the above comment; no questions about the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been reviewing the article at its talk page, and have received feedback on all my suggestions there. The article is comprehensive and well-written. There are numerous references (although the article relies significantly on the Smith ref, I don't think it does so overwhelmingly). I'd like to see a few more images, but unfortunately the time frame seems to be in a copyright black hole– too old to have any recent CC- or GFDL-licenced images, too young to have public domain images. (Surely the various Canadian archives have images that can be used as fair dealing.) I have no complaints about the stylistic aspects of the article. The only featured article criterion I would quibble about is length - it weighs in at just under 100kB, but I don't think it's excessive given the topic. Please note that I don't currently have access to the cited references, so I could not verify the claims made using the refs; I assumed they check out, based on the earlier peer review and comments here and on the article's talk page. Mindmatrix 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review and for looking at it for 2 hours (!) for inconsistencies. I rely heavily on Smith because it is the only bio of Dief to be published since his death (excepting one Young Adult bio which I have but refuse to use for obvious reasons). I can get a couple more images from Library and Archives Canada, there is one of Dief, Pearson, and CCF leader Hazen Argue taken in 1959 taken by Duncan Cameron, whose photos are free use if you acknowledge the source. I also have one of the Diefenbaker School in Toronto, which is where his father taught the kids who famously became Conservative MPs (they have rebuilt the building since). I think I will probably wait until after the FAC closes to make any decisions, since we have a completed image check and there have been some delays in getting one, don't want to go back to the foot of the queue. With free use images available, I can't justify fair use ones, and unhappily had to delete the well-known one of Dief in the Commons, pointing dramatically (it is PD in Canada but not in the US, see the discussion above). I agree, the article is an appropriate length, this guy was politically active for 60 years and led his country for 6. Thanks again for the large amount of feedback, like a lot of people who write, I tend to get a bit blinded by my own writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So to summarize current status, with the weekend coming up, two supports plus the nominator (one who reviewed it at PR, one who is new to the game), image check done, technical check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support All comments addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose: It's a bit wordy in places. For the first sentence, why not the punchier: "John George Diefenbaker, (September 18, 1895 – August 16, 1979) was the 13th Prime Minister of Canada from June 21, 1957 to April 22, 1963. "led" is repeated 5 times in the lead; and "appointed" twice: Why not "Diefenbaker appointed the first woman Cabinet minister and the first aboriginal member of the Senate." Why not: "Diefenbaker stood for re-election as party leader at the last moment, but only attracted minimal support and withdrew."
    • "he was given charge of political patronage there, and was created a King's Counsel." Are these two events supposed to be connected? I would assume that appointment as KC was independent of politics.
    • I'd move the link to World War II further up, maybe where it says "role in the war effort"
    • I don't see a link to Canadian federal election, 1957 in the prose. One might be useful.
    • I misread "Cabinet approved measures that summer ranging from increased price supports for butter and turkeys to pay increases for federal employees" as meaning that the increased pay supports were to pay for federal employees! I recommend "increased price supports...increased pay".
    • "US$.925" looks odd to me; what was the rate before? Can we use "less than a US dollar" or "92.5 US cents" or "US$0.925"?
    • "seeking out other projects at this time": "at this time" can be dropped.
    • "that the Brian Mulroney government had Canada join the organization" may be easier as "that Canada joined under the Brian Mulroney government".
  • Verifiability: I assume the quote "the only way to stop...arbitrary power" is from Bliss?
    • Presumably, "Dressed in a suit and tie, he is clearly aging with pouchy cheeks and hair combed from the middle to the sides." should be placed in alt text rather than the caption?
  • Images: Licenses are all fine. I think you should sneak File:Johndiefenbaker.jpg and File:Diefcommons.jpg back into the article after the FAC has closed and Elcobbola's back is turned!
    • For the alt text on the 1977 image: "[his hairs] stick out straight from his head. His eyes are still penetrating..." makes him sound like an aggressive punk. I recommend losing the mohican: e.g. "Now in his 80s, his cheeks are pouchy and his hair combed to the sides. His back is straight and his eyes are still penetrating." If you want to keep it a similar length, maybe mention it's a three-piece navy-blue pinstripe.
    • I'm not keen on the statue alt text: I think it's an overcoat and suit rather than a robe and taken more from the side than below. I'd drop the maybe it's a book maybe it's a brief, I find it more confusing than helpful. The image looks fine on the left looking inwards to me.

On the plus side, the article flows well, and held my interest. I'm satisfied it meets all the other criteria. These are essentially minor quibbles. DrKiernan (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will be on this later in the day. One thing, the appointment as King's Counsel was, according to the source, political spoils, as it mentions another Conservative activist who got the silks. God knows Dief deserved them, he is by all accounts one of the most effective barristers in the first half century of Saskatchewan, I have a book, "Diefenbaker for the Defence". He was a great lawyer. Things were not as sedate in 1920's Saskatchewan as in London ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all those things now, with minor changes to the wording. Regarding the Diefenbaker statue, I've moved it to the left (he was to the left of his party, anyway). A little research and I find that he is carrying the Bill of Rights under his arm; I've included that in the alt text. Thanks for your feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, DrKiernan. Well, three supports (the peer reviewer and two others), image check done, and rechecked by DrKiernan, technical check done, alt text in order. It's been a long FAC, but it has improved the article in my view. I'm not aware of anything further that needs to be done, if anyone else is, please feel free to comment. I've gotten very fond of this article, even while working fitfully on my next project, Antonin Scalia.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, it would be good to separate these notes out of References and into a Note section:
  • ^ Note: Kim Campbell also became a PC Prime Minister, but she never won an election to gain that role.
  • ^ Note: The exact phrasing of what Diefenbaker said to Laurier varies from source to source.

If you don't know how to do that, my TSP can probably help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [22].

Steve Dodd edit

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article as part of my interest in developing and promoting content relating to Indigenous arts in Australia. Dodd was a pioneer - an outback Arrente man whose acting career spans seven decades, and is not done yet. His story is extraordinary—stockman, war veteran and performer—yet, because he almost never performed in more than very minor film roles, he is almost unknown. I wrote this article to try and bring out what little is known about this interesting figure in Australia's cultural history. Thanks to User:Jezhotwells for the GA review, User:Jonyungk for the peer review comments, and to User:Ealdgyth for flagging some possible issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Alt text looks good.
  • No dabs, and external links work. Actually, ref 7 and the Dodd portrait's source appear to time out as I type; the portrait source worked for me at first and then stopped working.
  • Speaking of the portrait, it looks disturbingly blocky compared to its source. Did you notice, and if so, did you intentionally use high compression? I copied the photo from cas.awm.gov.au just before it started timing out, so I can crop and upload a nicer version later if you wish.

--an odd name 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, OddName. Some of the more technical stuff, such as image format, is not my strong suit. I didn't intentionally do anything - i temporarily saved the file to my hard drive, cropped it in MS Photo Editor to the format you see, saved again and uploaded. If you can produce a better result, please go ahead, i would be very grateful. The link issue appears to be a problem, hopefully temporary, at the Australian War Memorial end - i'm having problems with their search engine which was working fine this morning. Should resolve itself over the next day i expect. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I also archived ref 7 and its image, just in case. --an odd name 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I read this ariticle in peer review and have followed its progress closely since that time. Hamiltonstone has done an excellent job of putting together a compelling article that also helps fill an important need. The article was already a fine one at peer review, and hamiltonstone has only improved it. In its overall quality as well as its illumination of the situation in Australia for Indiginous artists, I believe the article meets the criteria for FA status. Well done. Jonyungk (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can the notes be rearranged so that the oft-cited book isn't listed in full all the time? some thing like Jones, Bob, Article X, in James, p. 2. or what not YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, done and it was much less work than i thought it would be. Any other thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why are some of them in John Smith and others in Jones, Robert format? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the ones that are articles in Murray are done as "John Smith, 'chapter name', in..." All others are done as "Smith, John etc". The styles are consistently applied in this way (i had to fix one that wasn't quite right). The reason was just that i thought "Smith, John, 'chapter', in..." looked odd with all the commas. If you and others don't like it, i can change them around. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're odd, I see quite a few books that do the same. It looks fine otherwise I think YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I reordered them all. One reference still appears with first name first - that is because it uses the editor, not the author name field and WP automatically generates this name order. So it looks slightly odd but is actually consistent with the style guide. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good to see the 26-article hook as welll for Australia Day. They'll be all here as well soon too I hope? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sandy posted on the FAC talk page that this needed an image review. Only two images:

  1. File:Steve Dodd Korea portrait.jpg. We need a publication date for this, according to the tag on the image page, though the PD tag refers to when the image was taken or published, so we only need to show one or the other. Also, is there more information about where it was obtained?
    Sorry, my mistake. There's a link to the source at the bottom of the page, which I missed because of the template. I've moved it higher. Date made March 1953, so that should be fine—the tag says images in Australia, where the creator is unknown, are PD if taken or published before January 1, 1955. Here the donor's name is available, but not the creator's. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. File:Chips Rafferty.jpg. The link showing the source for this one seems not to be working.
    I fixed the link to the source, which is here. In this case, the name of the photographer is known. I'm confused about the tag, which seems to contradict itself. It says "A. Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown [are PD if] taken or published prior to 1 January 1955. But then it says "B. Photographs (except A): taken prior to 1 January 1955." I can't work out what that means. Does knowing the name of the photographer make a difference or not?
    Okay, I checked the PD page, and it makes no mention of the photographer's name, but says, "Any photographs created before January 1, 1955 are thus in the public domain in Australia." So that's fine as far as Australia goes, for both images. It's not clear that these images would be PD in the U.S., but I don't know whether that matters at FAC. I've asked at WT:FAC, and will report back. Sorry that I don't know the answer. I'm a newbie image reviewer. :)

Hamiltonstone, this is a useful Signpost article about what's required of free images at FAC, in case it's helpful. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I chose this page to review because it didn't have a lot of images. Serves me right for being lazy. :) The situation is quite complicated. Regarding what is PD in the U.S., according to WP:PD:
  • "If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
  • "Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication ..."
So the question is whether this was copyrighted in the U.S. in 1996. WP:PD says, "In Australia, the copyright on published photographs taken before May 1, 1969 expired 50 years after the creation ... new legislation became effective on January 1, 2005, extending the copyright term ... but explicitly ruling out a revival of copyright on works whose copyright had already expired. Any photographs created before January 1, 1955 are thus in the public domain in Australia." I believe this means that the photographs are regarded as copyrighted in the U.S., because they were copyrighted in their country of origin in 1996, and were published between 1923 and 1995. The U.S. copyright appears to be 95 years from the original date of publication.
The question for this FAC, then, is whether images have to be PD in the U.S. as well as the country of origin. If yes, I don't think these can be used. But because this is a complex question, I'll make sure someone checks this who is knowledgable about images. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told here that images have to be PD in the U.S. before we can claim PD for them at all. I believe these images fail because they were regarded as copyrighted in the U.S. as of 1996, and are therefore copyrighted for 95 years from the date of first publication; see Wikipedia:Public domain#Country-specific rules. But I have asked that this be checked. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin is correct in the whole URAA issue (foreign images not in their country's public domain by on 1 Jan 1996 have their US copyrights restored, note the two copyrights). However, a recent movement on Commons advocates to tag such images (that have already been uploaded to Commons) with commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA (along with the copyright status in their source country) and leave them on Commons, deleting them (or the template) when a concensus has been reached, rather than deleting them outright. See these discussions for the various threads. Personally, I think this makes the images unstable (liable for deletion at any moment) but this is my personal view. Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jappalang, that's very helpful. Is there a rule that explicitly says images on Wikipedia (not on the Commons, but just on Wikipedia) have to be in the public domain in the U.S., rather than only in their country of origin? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang answered on my talk page. The answer is that images used on WP must be PD in the U.S., regardless of whether they're also PD elsewhere, and it seems that these aren't PD in the U.S.. The discussion about images of the kind you've used in this article can be found here. The bottom line is that some people think they're acceptable and some not, which means they're safe for now as far as the Commons goes, but they could be deleted at any time. This is the wording of the tag Jappalang mentioned above:

This work is not in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in the U.S. was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases). It is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year it was initially published (or until at least 2047, if it was first published between 1978 and 2002, inclusive).

This is not a valid license on Commons; a valid license template must accompany this tag or this image will be deleted. Even when this tag is accompanied by a valid license template, we are currently trying to figure out what to do with files like this one. If you are the copyright holder of this image, and do not wish to have it hosted on Commons, please contact our designated agent or nominate the image for deletion, explaining the situation.

Are there any other images of these people that you could use? The other option is to claim fair use for the purposes of this FA. I can't see that there would be a problem with claiming fair use for the image of Steve Dodd. I don't think you could claim it for Chips Rafferty in this article. In the longer term, you could try to obtain a free licence. It may be possible to do that for the one with a named photographer. Even for the other one, it could be that the donor was also the photographer. Perhaps you can track them down through the museum. I'm not suggesting you do that for this FAC though. :)
I think that's my image review completed. In summary, these images appear not to have a free licence as far as the United States is concerned, which is needed for them to be used as free images on Wikipedia, and therefore fair use would have to be claimed. This could be done for the image of the subject, File:Steve Dodd Korea portrait.jpg, but not for the second image, File:Chips Rafferty.jpg, in my view.SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<shakes head> My sympathy to you SV for having opened up that can of worms. No wonder people have begun challenging the URAA in the courts - what a loopy bit of law. If ever there was a case for WP to have servers hosting images in source countries, there it is. I would suggest that the chance of securing copyright release on these images is zero, particularly since Australian authorities such as the AWM will probably be greatly surprised to learn that copyright exists somewhere even though not here. As you note, in one case it is not even known who took the photograph. And the chance of locating either a photographer or their estate on an image taken over half a century ago, and either gifted to the War Memorial or taken by a government official in the first place, is likely to be low, putting it mildly. I've been unable to locate any alternative image of Rafferty at Commons. Given he died nearly forty years ago, again i would rate the chance at close to nil. (No one is likely to be loading their holiday snaps of Uncle Chips on Flickr). <sigh> Chips' image is gone. I've left the Dodd image. If i can work out the best way to approach that using your guidance above, i will. But I would say there is no question of it being legitimate fair use at the very least. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hamiltonstone, you're right that this is nonsensical. I don't think we'd even need servers in different countries. We just need as a community to decide not to have such strict images policies. I feel bad enforcing them, because I often disagree with them, but I want other people to do image reviews for my FACs, so I feel I need to offer some in return. That means I can't ignore the rules, but I do feel like a poacher turned gamekeeper.
Regarding the Steve Dodd image, in your shoes, I'd download it to Wikipedia and claim fair use, tagging it {{non-free use in|Steve Dodd}}. The rationale should say it's an image of historical importance, it's an image of the subject of the article who is deceased, the article would be much poorer without it, it has no monetary value that would be affected by our use of it, it has been previously published, there are no equivalent images that are regarded as in the public domain in the U.S., and it is in the public domain in its country of origin. There are some rationales here you could use.
Alternatively, another reviewer might disagree with me, and say you can go ahead and claim it as PD, given the disagreement on the Commons. However, FAC reviews generally don't follow the rules on the Commons, but the rules on Wikipedia, which differ sometimes, so I believe other reviewers would probably also say you can't claim these as PD for the purposes of this article. I'm sorry it's all so confusing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To other reviewers / delegates. I will get to the image fix in next 48hrs. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a first step, I have added the commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA tag at Commons, in addition to the Australian tag (which says the image is out of copyright in Australia). Personally, I am happy to leave it at this for two reasons: first, given the already chequered case law history of the URAA, it is yet to be determined whether the law will stand and second, in the case of this particular image, the Australian War Memorial does not appear able to identify an original copyright holder. I will try and speak to someone at the Memorial about whether they believe that they themselves own the copyright (in the event that any copyright exists). A note to the delegates when they come to consider closing this: if my approach to this image is the sole stumbling block to promoting this article, let me know before you close it, and I will try an alternative (even if that means deleting the image entirely). hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff it, I decided to go the non-free use rationale route, even thought i think it is ridiculous, in order to hopefully put this beyond doubt. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can't actually use fair use images for living persons (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches#Article-specific criteria). My sympathies for the mess you've found yourself in regarding images. Ucucha 11:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ucucha, i found that Signpost article useful. I read it, and it does not appear that the fact that the subject is living is an inherent issue. It "generally precludes" their use, but the explanations of why this is the case indicate that the matter should be approached by applying criteria for why the use is desirable, rather than a blanket rule about whether the subject is alive. I have beefed up the non-free use rationale as a result of reading the article, though. Finally, i realised there is a different way in which the image's inclusion can be defended: Australia has freedom of panorama in its copyright law, and the image in question is on permanent public display at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. So, whichever way one approaches this issue: as a sceptic about the URAA's validity; through non-free use; or through freedom of panorama, I think the image is acceptable. I think I'm done here. hamiltonstone (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also in foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which speaks about "almost all portraits of living notable individuals" being excluded from fair use. I think the claim under either freedom of panorama or URAA being bad may be stronger than the one for fair use, as in theory we could get another image of him, but my knowledge of the issues is very small. I agree with SV that this is a place where our image policies are more restrictive than they should be. This FAC gets broad support, and for good reason; it's a pity this stuff is causing trouble. Ucucha 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hamilton, have you tried contacting Dodd's agent? He might have an image of himself in uniform, if that's what you particularly wanted, or some other so we'd avoid this issue. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say just remove the picture, as they aren't needed, and the fair use claim doesn't work, as it's just being used as a decoration rather than linking in with the text much, and it doesn't show anything hard to understand in words, just a dark-skinned person wearing an army uniform. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think fair use can be claimed here if Hamilstone particularly wants to show an image of Dodd in uniform from that period, adding in the cutline that it's from the Australian museum website. The policy says under unacceptable use (my bold), "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." If Hamilton's encyclopedic purpose is to show this person from that period, it can be used, though it could be argued it would have to go in the appropriate section, not in the lead. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the image to the section on his early career, and have modified the body text and image caption slightly, to make the purpose and linkages clearer. I am hoping that this responds to slimvirgin's comments above, making it clear the image is intended to serve a specific, historical purpose, rather than as a general portrait of the subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also spoken to the subject's agent. No decision yet on whether a contemporary image will be made available on terms consistent with WP free content. If it is, you'll see it appear in due course. I am very grateful for everyone's input on the images. Once again, a note to the closing delegate: if you are not happy with the image situation as it currently stands, please advise before archiving. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments (Ucucha)

The article reads good in general, but I'm a bit concerned about broadness and the sources used. Many pertinent facts about Dodd are evidently not recorded in reliable sources, even his age. You have solved that by using quite a few references to primary sources, which may or may not be considered acceptable. I am not sure there is any issue here that warrants not promoting the article. You've probably had to do more work on finding all the bits and pieces here than you would have had if there were some nice monographs on the subject, and it looks like you've done as good a job as you could considering the paucity of sources on the subject.

I did not check whether all refs can be considered reliable sources. A few specific comments:

Lead
  • "films spanning seven decades" - at least to me, this sounds like individual films going on for seven decades. Perhaps "over seven decades" instead?
Acting career
  • "Web site Milesago suggests Dodd may have been the actor in Woobinda (rather than Bindi Williams), but Dodd's age would rule him out." (in ref) - Could you please cite this? Otherwise, it is original research.
  • spelled it out and let the reader draw their own conclusion. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References nitpicking
  • ref. 9 needs a page number, and needs to be in the same format as ref. 14
  • I no longer have this book. I can probably get the missing details early next wk. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a copy. Actually there was a mistake in the refs, as well as missing info. Now corrected. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref. 13: shouldn't JASAL be expanded to the full name?
  • Ucucha, can you spell out any concerns about breadth of coverage? You are right - an extraordinary amount of detective-work has been involved in locating these sources. It is one of the issues in Australia with systemi bias against Indigenous recognition. It isn't so much of an issue now, but for early figures in Indigenous arts, such as Dodd, it is quite a challenge. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has very little about his personal life, in a few places you have contradictory sources on whether he was in some movies, and little about critical comments on him. The material that is there is often supported by only a few sources, which also contradict each other a few times. But you can't do anything about that, and after thinking a little more about it, I am now supporting its promotion (trusting you'll sort out the little issue with refs 9 and 14). Ucucha 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • What's the point of having a blockquote for a one line sentence? As far as I know, blockquote's are only usually used for three of four sentence quotes. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. Ditched the blockquote, and simplified the lead-in sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Superbly researched, can't find anything to nitpick. Rebecca (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. well done. crisp clear prose and comprehensive etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oh my what a lovely article. Nicely done. Very informative, nice use of quotes. Good sources. A single Question? Is batchelor Aussie for bachelor, as in unmarried man?? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed that and then changed it back upon discovering wikt:bachelor. It is apparently a legitimate spelling variant. Ucucha 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done. I made a few edits to fix exceedingly minor ref formatting and punctuation issues. It's odd to see the film names in plaintext in the Filmography; would be best to italicize those. Kudos on an interesting article, and thank you for the attention to dashes, ref formatting and logical quotation! Maralia (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've switched the film titles in the table to italics as suggested. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nicely written, and I enjoyed reading it. I would have liked to know more about his personal life, but I'm assuming nothing more is known, or reliably sourced. I wonder whether it would be worth giving an estimate of his age. This source gives a range of 72-82. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, and thanks for your assistance here. Dodd appears to have been a very private man, and you are correct, the sources say no more than i have included. From conversation with someone who knows him i know his current age, but there are no reliable sources publishing it. That webpage is undated, so I would prefer not to quote it on his age. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [23].

Henry Edwards (entomologist) edit

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it passed its GA review and no major issues were revealed that could inhibit Featured Article status. Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good. I slightly tweaked one unresponsive google books URL to make it land on one of the two useful pages, unfortunately the second page of 141–142. For some reason, when the URL ended with page 141, the resulting page view was of the frontispiece, not the internal article target. Weird! Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image concerns Image review:

  • File:Henry Edwards engraving with sig.jpg: the source states "printed in 1880s" but the date states "before 1891". That it was published (as a souvenir card) is not in dispute; a crucial question to verify the copyright status of this card remains unanswered: where was this item first published? (removed)
  • File:Syngrapha celsa.jpg: the license is incorrect; the Canadian site never granted "free use" of the photo for following the conditions stated. They plainly forbid commercial usage,[24] thereby disqualifying it from storage on Commons. (Image removed) Jappalang (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Added) File:Catocala ophelia2.JPG: this should be moved to Wikipedia until the death of the true author is resolved (see commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Category:Catalogue Of The Noctuidae In The Collection Of The British Museum). Basically although Hampson wrote the book, he did not draw the illustrations; Horace Knight drew them, West and Newman coloured them. Thus, the British copyright last for 70 years after the death of Knight, West, and Newman (all of them). The image is sound when stored on Wikipedia (since the project's hosting scope is limited to US copyright laws), because of its publishing before 1923. Its copyright in its country of origin, however, is unknown for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC) (moved)[reply]
  • I have taken your advice to heart, but in carrying out the process I noticed that there was a discrepancy: I was mistaken in thinking that the image on the Catocala desdemona page showed that particular moth. It doesn't. It shows the Catocala delilah; a different moth. Instead, I have transferred an image of the Catocala ophelia moth to Wikipedia in alignment with your concerns regarding the wait for 70 years after the deaths of Hampson, Knight, West and Newman. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image issues should be easily resolved; the oppose stands until then. The other two images (photo and sketch) of Edwards are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dumped the green caterpillar image—I am not married to it and I certainly didn't realize its illegitimate beginnings. I may try to replace it with another Edwards-identified critter photo in the public domain but if so I will be more careful. The engraving with signature I feel is more central to the article. I will try harder to identify its provenance. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After quite a lot of fruitless searching to find the publishing date of the challenged infobox image, I removed it, moving another up into its place. At the same time, I added an image of Catocala ophelia down near the bottom of the article, as an example of his preference for Shakespearean characters. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are verifiably in the public domain and stored on appropriate servers. Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, if you're actually using a transcribed book, you need to cite the footnote like it was a book, not a website. The information you're citing wasn't published by the SF people but by the original publisher. Second, how do we know they accurately transcribed this? I won't say it's unreliable, but it would be better to check the original book just in case. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've cut out the middleman and gone straight to the source, which I had mistakenly assumed was unavailable because Google books did not have it. It is, in fact, available for online reading at www.archive.org. Interestingly, the SF Genealogy people had the cite exactly right. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Yeah, normally they do, but... better to go with one of the bigger names (like archive.org, google, or project gutenburg). When it's a scan, less chances of transcription errors. (I write on medieval subjects, I know ALL about transcription errors!) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. Hey, interesting! I enjoyed the read. However, I don't think the prose is up to par at the moment. You probably should have spent a bit of time between GA and FAC getting this ready... you brought it to FAC the day it was promoted to GA? One of our good friends at Peer Review likely would have identified some of the issues. I listed some specific examples below, but overall the problem is sometimes-jarring, repetitive prose. Many sentences begin with "Edwards <verb>" or "<prepositional phrase>, Edwards <verb>" which is monotonous and difficult to read smoothly. Recommend a thorough copyedit by someone new and/or withdrawing for a Peer Review.
    • "A gathering in Edwards' honor was the spark which began the traditional summer encampment of the Bohemian Grove." I have to say this sent me spinning off into a variety of articles for a few minutes to understand the context. Not a good thing for the first paragraph. I think it's the past tense that threw me. I had to look up Bohemian Grove, then discover the significance, then try (unsuccessfully) to understand why it "was" the spark. It appears that the gatherings are still hosted... do they no longer honor Edwards?
    • "Edwards' wide-ranging studies and observations of insects allowed him to name his discoveries" How so? Just because he discovered them first, or was there some kind of authority vested in Edwards? The body text doesn't clarify, it only states that he named several species.
    • "Early Career" begins with "Edwards was", "Edwards collected", and "Edwards' father ... Edwards took" and so on. We need to introduce some variety into the text. This problem is endemic throughout the article.
    • "Edwards went up in a hot air balloon, and befriended William Sharp Macleay" He befriended him in the hot air balloon? How are these related?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your concerns and I will be dedicating some red pencil time to smooth out the clunky prose. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been attacking the wooden prose and I believe I am making headway. Next up: the lede. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I have worked on the indicated problems, and the article is once again ready for review. Thanks for everybody's patience! Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Withdrawing my opposition—significant progress has been made. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've just been through it again and nothing jumps out at me. An enjoyable and interesting read for sure. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPRT
  • few more toothpicks in your prose...
  1. He collected butterflies as a hobby, and studied these insects under the tutelage of''
    1. Good one! Done.
  2. The part of Petruchio, the male lead in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, was ably filled by Edwards at the Princess's Theatre in Sydney in 1859...Edwards ably filled the part of Petruchio, the male lead in... at the Princess' Theatre in Sydney in 1859....
    1. I was asked earlier to change a bunch of wooden prose that involved a lot of sentences beginning with "Edwards did such and such..." Thus, when I discovered the Petruchio cite, I tamped Edwards down into the middle of the sentence. I can easily change this to fit your suggestion, but will I lose earlier reviewers in doing so?
      1. At the Princess' Theatre in Sydney in 1859, Edwards ably filled ??? I don't agree that starting a sentence with the subject's name is wooden. It's using the same verbs and sentence structure that makes it wooden. But I'll not fall on the sword over this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. and Brookes...etc. Make a new sentence? This one is long and I was gasping for breath by the end.
    1. Agreed. Done.
  4. As a twist to perk public interest,.... As a twist to tweak...?
    1. I selected pique. I think you will like it!
  5. ...the first Australian mounting of that work ..... production of that work?
    1. I like mounting for its classic theatrical usage. See Cymbeline, Afore Night Come, Alice in Wonderland and I Am My Own Wife, or perhaps Stephen MacDonald or Beit Zvi, or the scads of online theatre reviews that use variations of the phrase "mount the play".
  6. Edwards sought out renowned expert... make your subject the subject when possible'
    1. See "wooden prose" above. Easy to change, but should I?
      1. see my response above. It's not a deal breaker for me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. founding member of the theater company of the California Theatre...founding member of the California Theatre company?
    1. I changed it to "founding member of the acting company of the California Theatre" because I wanted to retain the notion that the company of actors was associated with one building, not the state of California.
  8. studying butterflies under Hans with Hans.... or something. Under the direction of....
    1. I don't understand the concern. People study under other people, with the word "under" clearly meaning that the first one is the pupil, and the second one the teacher.
      1. Under someone implies a more formal organizational structure. But again, not a deal breaker. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Baja California needs a comma. Baja, California. At least it does in the United States.... Leeds, England? or Leeds England?
    1. I believe Baja California stands without a comma.
  10. He befriended John Muir who sent him specimens from the Sierras. John Muir, who ? Commas before which and who usually.
    1. Good catch. Done!
  11. Edwards presented a series of papers to the Academy entitled Pacific Coast Lepidoptera,[8] and classified two species as new to science, naming one Gyros muiri for Muir. Edwards presented a series of papers entitled Pacific Coast Peidoptera to the Academy and classified two species as new to science. He named one Gyros muiri, for Muir. The academy is not named Pacific Coast Pe...the papers are. The sentence is already long.
    1. Yes, you're right. Done.
  12. In 1873, Edwards was made curator of...too passive. Edwards became....
    1. Done!
  13. Combine Boston and New York? Only 1 idea in Boston. really shouldn't be on its own.
    1. Right! I put all of that under the heading "Boston to New York", deleting "Boston" and "New York" as headings.
  14. performing on stage and taking part in insect studies. performing on stage and participating in insect studies...
    1. Yes. Done!
  15. framed to support destitute actors or their widows.... formed? actually you don't need anything there just to support destitute actors or their widows...
    1. I like your shortest suggestion. Done.
  16. the book was favorably reviewed in the New York Tribune, and the review reprinted in the Literary News: "Mr. Edwards—remarkable for attainments in science no less than .... this should be a new sentence.
    1. Split into two sentences. Done!
  17. current value... 2010 value.
    1. The inflation template does this job for us—we do not have to perform manual updates.
      1. good to know! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps some pictures of the butterflies?
    • I have searched for exactly that, but too many images are not public domain. The insects Edwards discovered are not the usual easy-to-find sort—people who manage to take pictures of them are protective of the results.

Lovely article, nicely done. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If this one makes FA, it will be my first WP:Four Award candidate. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, terrific, I hope it makes it. I don't see why it shouldn't. Full support. All issues resolved and struck. The ones that aren't struck are explained and not deal breakers for me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Support from Auntieruth55 and AndyWalsh. Jappalang did an image review and it sounds like "he" says it's okay. Ealdgyth checked the links. Someone else whose name I cannot read checked the other technicals (dabs, etc). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning support but a few niggles before I feel comfortable doing so.

  • "The life of the theater called to Edwards early in his career...." slightly unencylopedic there.. Perhaps "Edwards joined the theater early in his life, appearing in ..."
  • I opted for "Edwards was drawn to the theater early in life..." Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was English, shouldn't the dates be in the English format?
  • Ouch! I think of him as American, no less than millions of other Americans born elsewhere who came and stayed. His major works were in America, especially his bug publications and his play Elaine. Because of this, I wish to keep mdy date format, and US engvar. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of peacockery is evident "...was ably filled..."
  • Deleted "ably", though I'm sure a review I read caused me to put that in. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a cite for the opinion bit in the last phrase of the first paragraph of Early career.
  • Copied named ref from earlier in the sentence to that spot at the end. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should quickly explain what Lepidoptera is besides just linking it.
  • Need a cite for "After a successful six-week New York run, Palmer took Elaine on the road." as the "successful" bit is opinion (barely so, but best to cover your bases here)
  • Okay, I found a bit of extra detail along with the cites for "six weeks" and for "successful". Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When these are resolved, I'll be happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made some simple copyediting tweaks, nearly all related to minor punctuation issues. This is nicely written and well-sourced. Theater and bugs—what a combination! Maralia (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [25].

Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Another RAAF character known not only for his exploits in the air—which were considerable—but also for his post-military career and for never being afraid to speak his mind, comparable perhaps to fellow Group Captain John Lerew. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well structured and well written. Would be nice to create an article for the red-linked No. 72 Wing RAAF before becoming FA, and remember that punctuation marks go inside quotation marks. —Eustress talk 20:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Eustress. No. 72 Wing RAAF is certainly on my list (and No. 79 Wing RAAF). I was under the impression that only complete sentences required the punctuation within the quotes, but if I've not followed that rule I'm happy to alter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • After further review regarding quotation punctuation, I learned that Wikipedia uses logical quotation, so the article is probably just fine (see WP:LQ). —Eustress talk 21:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I supported this article during its A-Class review and was impressed with its high standard and quality then. Since that time, the article has been improved even further and I have no reservations in endorsing the article's elevation to Featured status. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a great article which easily meets the FA criteria. The excellent choice of photos is worthy of particular praise. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Nick, and I appreciate the notice of the images, particularly as one is from me 'ole Dad's collection when he was one of those first five Wirraway pilots into Darwin, fortunately of course not the one that crashed (somewhere I have a letter to Mum where he talks about the "awful luck" of inexperienced young aircrew flying brand new and unfamiliar aircraft across the length of Australia and coming to grief at the very last moment, and noting "you didn't hear about it in the newspapers")...
    • At the risk of looking a gift horse in the mouth though, can you just check the query on the article talk page to do with the alterations to the Southern Command passage? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very nice article on a very interesting man. I do have two small points however 1) Image caption "Wing Commander Eaton (left) during coal strike in Darwin, 1940" - should that be "the coal strike" 2) Do we know any more about his first world war service with the London Regiment - when did he go to France and what engagements did he participate in? Do we know which battalion he served with? Otherwise excellent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Jacky: 1) I avoided the definite article because I'm not sure there wasn't more than one coal strike in Darwin around that time...! 2) Added a bit more along the lines you suggested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [26].

Amazing Grace edit

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I assert it's Awadewit's fault that she was making me read about hymns and then all the sudden, in 24 hours, I had gotten all inspired to write this article. That would, however, neglect the fact that I really do think something about this song has a universal transformative power and that many versions I have heard, Judy Collins' among them, have been some of the most moving pieces of music I have ever known. Strangely enough, if you place a few versions back to back, it's very much like listening to different songs in each one. At any rate, let me know what I can do to improve it. Thanks. Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADD I hate to be a mooch (really), but there are no good mp3 to ogg converters for Mac laptops. There is a shape note version of this song that I can justify with a fair use rationale (but is probably in PD), hosted here: [27] Might anyone be able to convert a 30-second sample of this to ogg to place in the article? Preferably getting the beginning, fa-so-la intro before the words. Thank you in advance. --Moni3 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of indicating just how hopelessly technologically stupid I am, any ideas on how to grab the mp3 format from that link so I can attempt a conversion using the program you just linked to? --Moni3 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Click the link for the MP3 in Safari (linked below). Go to Window:Activity, find the page you opened, and then Option-Click the file. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/natlib/ihas/service/amazinggrace/200049059/0001.mp3]) That will begin the download (you can use that trick for everything from page elements to Youtube videos.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll give that a try. I work usually in Firefox on the Mac. Never done what you just outlined, so it's good to know. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If something was supposed to happen, it didn't. Everything seemed to follow except for the err, download part. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, wait. I think I got it. (Just how much do I sound like someone's grandmother trying to set the VCR??) --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In refs but not notes: Martin and Spurrell (eds.)(1962); Newton (1811). The former might explain why the Martin notes include the year of publication [Martin (1950)], while others do not. • Ling.Nut 07:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that thing...I think...Let me know if what I fixed is not what you are telling me to fix. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These days, I hear it most often in commercials. They don't do it justice; at a glance, this article does. --an odd name 15:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to their site (which I'm sure you checked), Hymnary.org is a project of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library and the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, both located at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI
Hymnary.org is being used to cite that "Amazing Grace" is Newton's spiritual autobiography. Other sources have said this as well, and in fact, people like Arlo Guthrie and Joan Baez have said that their interest in the song is because of Newton's life.
Hymnary.org is also being used to cite that "Amazing Grace" appears in over 1,000 hymnals, which I do not doubt, and its purpose in religious services. At least for this last point, I think it is wholly appropriate to state what the purpose of the hymn is, its role during a service and what message should accompany it (rather, if the song is an appropriate accompaniment for a particular sermon) according to an ecclesiastical organization, particularly in the section that discusses the multiple uses it has taken on in the last 40 years. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works for leaving it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, I'd support it. Candyo32 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Candyo32, do you have any thoughts on the article, its sources, etc.? Featuring an article takes consensus, not simple votes—if Raul654 or someone else decided they should review or un-feature this article and wonder why you supported it, what would you tell them? (I bolded your support to make it easier to see, by the way.) --an odd name 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a few comments. This is really good! I'll have to attend my Living Without Commas support group tonight, but I recognize it's an editorial preference so I won't complain. Nice work Moni!
    • I don't have a problem with Hymnary.org for what it's supporting.
    • I did not see any problems with the PD images.
    • "'Amazing Grace' is one of the most recognized songs" Dunno, but "recognized" struck my editing Spidey-sense. It seems to connote "recognize with awards" and such; do you mean "recognizable"?
    • "until he quit going to sea altogether and began to study theology" Suggest "began studying" for parallel goodness.
    • "His disobedience caused him to be press-ganged into the Royal Navy" Why say "press-ganged" here when you said "pressed" in the lead? The reader will double-take to find out of they mean different things.
    • "In An Annotated Anthology of Hymns, Newton's use of an expletive at the beginning of his verse is called 'crude but effective'" I didn't understand this passage. What expletive? Do you mean in the sense of meaningless filler, or an actual profanity? In either case, it's not made clear what the expletive is supposed to be.
    • "it has been used for a variety of secular purposes and marketing campaigns, placing it in danger of becoming a cliché." Is that attributed to Turner?
    • Favorite line of the article: "The pipe president of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards was summoned to Edinburgh Castle and chastised for demeaning the bagpipes."
--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made some changes to the lead per your suggestion, and changed press-ganged to pressed.
The expletive in this sense is that the first line is "Amazing grace!" meant to be said or sung with some force. Not the same way...well, maybe the same tone...as one might say "shit!" But clearly not for the same purpose. I peeked at a thesaurus for "expletive" and one of the synonyms listed was "bark"... That just made me laugh. Do you suggest something else? Ejaculation? *cough* Shriek? Vociferation? Thesauruses are fun. Thanks for your review. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by suggestion: Exclamation? Not sure if that's any better, but it was my first thought. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used "exclamation" in the preceding sentence. Word diversity and all. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [29].

Battle of the Nile edit

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


An article on what some consider the highest point of Horatio Nelson's illustrious career: a British fleet, 2,000 miles from the nearest reinforcements, entered an uncharted harbour at night and almost completely destroyed a stronger French fleet anchored in an ostensibly strong defensive formation. In one stroke Nelson changed the direction of the war and achieved one of the most complete victories in naval history. The article has been dramatically expanded and improved since September and although it is long, I'm really not sure where else to cut given that two sub-articles have already been spun off the main body of text. It has over 200 citations and I feel that it now comprehensively covers this highly important battle and the events surrounding it. It has had a Military history peer review and is now ready for your comments. Many thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest using {{harvnb}} for the references so that they can be linked to the bibliography section, so the user doesn't have to scroll down to look it up. Recently featured articles like Dick Turpin, which have long list of bibliographic references use it for easier reference checking.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this, but it will take a while to get through them all. Any other comments?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAs need only have a consistent referencing style (which this article does), not a specific style. If Diaa would like a different style, s/he is of course welcome to invest all of time it takes to recode the article. It is not inconsiderable. Awadewit (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am reluctant to make such time-consuming changes for what seems to be so little gain, particularly in the light of this diff, which only seems to add to the load. Can anyone explain to me what the purpose of including the date is if there are no seperate references by the same author? Diaa, are you going to make these changes or should I revert to before I started experimenting?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be better if the references have links that go directly to the bibliographical reference, I don't care much about the style. Revert your changes I will take care of the referencing when I have some time with search and replace.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is also worth pointing out that the more code-heavy articles are, the more intimidating they are for new users. Having a referencing system that is complex deters new users from contributing and adding new references. That is one reason I tend to use the simplest referencing system I can find. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have revert back to the original. Thank you both for your input, and I have to agree with Awadewit on this one, although I have no prejudice against Diaa making these changes at a later date if they see fit to. regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I would suggest copy/pasting the output of the current templates onto a text file, repasteing them back onto the page to get rid of the templates, restoring wikilinks italics etc., then use {{wikicite}} for the internal links. Or whatever.• Ling.Nut 11:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Refs all formatted A-OK. • Ling.Nut 11:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the refs to make them linked. The Mostert book appears to have a 13-digit ISBN; the 10-digit would be more consistent. Other errors? I hope not. • Ling.Nut 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 13 digit is the only ISBN I could find on my rather battered copy of his book - this should be enough I think. If there are errors then please point them out.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. • Ling.Nut 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • ISBN returns an error for the Adkins ref, please double check.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is done now. Thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
My coverage of the article to date is insufficient for a vote, I will revisit.
Criterion 1a
  • With reference to: "In spite of the overwhelming British victory in the climactic battle, the campaign has sometimes been considered a strategic success for France. Historian Edward Ingram has noted that if Nelson had successfully intercepted Bonaparte at sea as ordered, the ensuing battle could have annihilated both the French fleet and the transports. As it was, Bonaparte was free to continue the war in the Middle East and later to return to Europe personally unscathed.[189] The potential of a successful engagement at sea to change the course of history is emphasised by the list of French army officers carried aboard the convoy who later formed the core of the generals and marshals under Emperor Napoleon. In addition to Bonaparte himself, Louis Alexandre Berthier, Auguste de Marmont, Jean Lannes, Joachim Murat, Louis Desaix, Jean Reynier, Antoine-François Andréossy, Jean-Andoche Junot, Louis-Nicolas Davout and Dumas, as well as Kléber and Caffarelli who were to die in Egypt, were all passengers on the cramped Mediterranean crossing."
  • Avoid weasel word 'sometimes'
I don't think its weaselly in this context: It is a fact that this point has been raised, and I cite a historian who has done so. Can you suggest an alternative?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knee-jerk reaction to someanything :)
  • Perhaps "Historian Edward Ingram has noted that... and the transports. This would imply that in spite of the overwhelming..."
  • Alternatively, "Edward Ingram contends that the campaign can be considered a strategic success for France in that..."
I'm not totally convinced by either of these options, I'll think about it a bit more and get back to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is rather too easy to read the full list of officers as having died in Egypt, leading to a logical contradiction
I have eliminated the officers killed in Egypt as neither is very important and it was potentially confusing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'emphasised' to 'underscored'?
Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link to the crossing?
Yes, Mediterranean campaign of 1798. It is a {{details}} link in the first section of the article - shall I link it again here?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the MoS requirement to avoid double-linking can be taken too far in situations where there is ambiguity. I couldn't find it in the lead either, notably missing in " ...the climax of a naval campaign that had ranged across the Mediterranean..."
Now linked in both additional places.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fantastic lead, however it overlooks the aforementioned stategic failure - I'm not sure if the failure is sufficiently notable for the lead.
Its not, it is a minority historical opinion worth mentioning in the article itself but not within the already overcrowded lead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, language is technically brilliant, but sometimes falls on the side of excessively obtuse and/or convoluted: more appropriate for a scholarly work than an encyclopedia article.
I can see your point, but can you be more specific - this is quite a complex subject and I did my best to simplify it where I could.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 4
I'll start by saying that I am hopeless with technical image issues and will need you to be much more specific with your comments below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant source material, please search for higher resolution versions, as with "Nelson at the Battle of the Nile.jpg". I'm aware that these are not normally available, but would be wonderful.
  • Gamma correction may lead to significant improvements, especially with the above image.
  • Sadly, the jpg artifacts in this image renders it unsalvagable. Perhaps one day WikiMedia will be able to invest in prints.
  • Please check all artworks for appropriate templates, for example "Aboukir.jpg" requires work.
  • Note that "Battle of the Nile, Whitcombe.jpg" has a correct image template, while numerous others are described in plaintext, often incompletely, as with "Luny Thomas Battle Of The Nile August 1st 1798 At 10pm.jpg". Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I still do not understand any of what you are asking me. Is there a link you can provide explaining the problem more clearly?
  • "Luny Thomas Battle Of The Nile August 1st 1798 At 10pm.jpg" and "Battle of Aboukir Bay.png" still require correct templates. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant map, svg is preferred if available.
  • Again, not sure what you are referring to, can you clarify or simplify some more?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, FA quality images.
Thankyou for your interest and comments, they are much appreciated. If you have any further issues (and more detail regarding the image problems) I would be happy to make further improvements. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Criterion 1a
  • "The battle has remained prominent in popular consciousness" should, I believe, be "the popular consciousness" although I would prefer something more punchy for the last sentence like "The Battle of the Nile has been immortalised in numerous works..." or "The legend of the Battle of the Nile perseveres..." or similar. A little dramatic, but such a good lead needs to end strongly.
Had a go, how does that look?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, perhaps take a look at the repeated "legendary", "legend" in the last two sentences. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French Directory developed various schemes to counter British opposition,..." could be phrased as "...investigated a number of strategic options to counter British opposition,..."
Good suggestion, done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...developed a powerful fleet at Toulon..." to "...assembled a powerful fleet at Toulon..."
That repeats assembled too soon. I'm open to changing this, but it will have to be a different word.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check punctuation in "...and, in exchange for substantial financial compensation, handed..."
Punctuation added.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check tenses / rephrase "While Bonaparte was sailing to Malta, the Royal Navy had re-entered the Mediterranean for the first time in over a year."
Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marching along the coast, the French army stormed Alexandria and captured the city,[33] Bonaparte then leading the main force of his army inland.[34]" could be rephrased "and Bonaparte led..." to read more easily.
Rephrased--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "larger ships of the French fleet" could be "French ships of the line"?
That's not quite right - the smaller ships of the line could have entered the port, but the larger ones (80 guns and bigger) could not. I'll leave it as it is for now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, an alternative anchorage at Aboukir Bay was selected..." Check comma. Also, the lead alludes to the (perceived) strength of Aboukir Bay as a defensive position. It would be nice if this tied in.
I looked at punctutation and made a change, but I'm reluctant to discuss the merits of Aboukir Bay here when there is a whole section devoted to it immediately below as I'll only be repeating myself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...information was finally obtained..." scans poorly, similarly the remainder of "...with his scouts..."
Both rephrased.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys D'Aigalliers, believed to be a formidable defensive position." in the lead appears to contradict "...anchor in Aboukir Bay, a shallow and exposed anchorage..." and "...Brueys refused, in the belief that his squadron could provide essential support to the French army on shore."
I'm not quite sure what the problem is here. The bay was a weak position, but Brueys decided to stay there to support the troops on shore and arranged his ships into what he believed was a strong formation. I'm not sure which part of this is unclear.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps due to experience with land warfare, I associated a "strong defensive position" with geographic advantages, hence the apparent contradiction. Perhaps clarify in the body that Brueys believed that the nature and disposition of the ships constituted a formidable defense without geographic advantages. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot make head or tail of "It is possible that Bonaparte envisaged the anchorage as a temporary base: on 27 July he expressed the expectation that Brueys had transferred to Alexandria and three days later issued orders for the fleet to make for Corfu in preparation for naval operations against the Ottoman territories in the Balkans,[44] although the courier was intercepted and killed by Bedouin partisans.[45]"
What part is confusing you?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A land base for the army or a naval base? How does that connect with the expectation of Brueys having transferred to Alexandria (with or without the ships?) and how does this connect with the preparations for operations against the Ottomans? I feel like a lot of context is required to understand this sentence. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed it to anchorage insead of base - does that help?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I can't see a comparison of the number of guns in each vessel / fleet. Since weight of cannon was such a key determinant of the outcome of an engagement (as with Bellerophon vs L'Orient), this is a significant problem in reading the flow of the battle. Anyone not aware ot the significance of weight of fire in naval combat in this period could benefit from a brief introduction. Perhaps there is a link to this concept?
There is a whole paragraph on this in the reaction section. I left it for there because it is a matter of historiological debate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all for now. A brilliant piece of work. Dhatfield (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much, much appreciated. Can you comment further above regarding images?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about giving you a hard time, but excellent deserves to be perfect. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have entered a supporting vote for promotion to Featured - this is most certainly some of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Dhatfield (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou very much, much appreciated. I have tried to deal with the outstanding issues in your review, but I'm afraid that I am still completely at sea regarding the image problems you have raised.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a brilliant article, and a delight to read. I've used this campaign and battle as examples of intelligence gathering in university classes, and I have yet to read such a masterful description, explanation and summary of interpretations of the battle. This said, I have a couple of minor comments that I hope will enhance the article.

  • when you mention Nelson, first section, and his injuries at St. Vincent, that sentence is confusing (and long). It might be nudged Nelson was a highly successful officer who had been blinded in one eye during fighting in Corsica in 1794, commended for his capture of two Spanish ships of the line at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in February 1797 but then lost an arm at the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in July 1797.[17]
The highly successful Nelson had been blinded in one eye during the fighting in Corsica in 1794, commended for his capture of two Spanish Ships of the line at the night Battle of Cape St. Vincent in February 1797, and lost an arm at the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in July 1797.
I wasn't totally happy with your suggested version, and I experimented a bit, eventually breaking it into two sentences and adding a little bit of detail.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we need an explanation of the illuminated white ensign--to the average reader, it won't be clear that ships were often damaged with friendly fire because they were confused with the enemy.
Clarified I think.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before this time tomorrow I shall have gained a peerage or Westminster Abbey. Needs an explanation, I think. In the typically oblique style of 18th century bragging, it's fairly obscure.
I have explained it, although I don't have a source that picks it apart like that, so i hope my interpretation is acceptable.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after the French order to set sails was abandoned, the British fleet began rapidly approaching once more and Brueys, now certain that an attack was coming that night,.. now certain that an attack was coming that night... now expecting a night attack...
Changed (with a slight adjustment).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ship's boats, the brig Mutine and the 50-gun sounds like the ship's boats are the brig and ...
I've tried to clarify this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
brief explanation of why the 10 year old son of Casabianca was there.
I don't actually have a source explaining why he was there, although it was not unusual for boys of his age to accompany their fathers aboard warships at that time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but we still need an explanation. You could find a source, perhaps. Somewhere in one of your books there must be a statement about why a young boys was on a ship. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adkins, refers to children on shipboard, pp. 32 at Nile specifically (but focuses on women) and 200 and 371 (Warship Defence). See also Roy Adkins, Nelson's Trafalgar, pp 77-79. Or you could also explain the age of midshipmen...Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re fire on the Orient, I added the word "conversely"
Thankyou--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, TERRIFIC article. Wholehearted support from Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, your comments and support were much appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
w/ the one exception, all my quibbles have been fixed. None of them stood in the way of support for this article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
one more thing: you might add the first two lines of the poem, The boy stood on the burning deck/Whence all but he had fled... after you mention it. Many people would have heard those lines, but not connect the poem to the event. Just a thought. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on an Image review:

  • File:Seeschlacht bei Abukir.jpg: What is the title of this painting? Who painted it? When was it created and published? The source given points to Luny's Battle of Cape St Vincent, which is a different painting, and does not name this uploaded painting as The Battle of the Nile or attributes this image to Luny. In fact, it seems only the Wikiprojects have attributed this painting to Luny (was the German Wikipedia, where the image came from, the first to attribute it to him?). The data and license stated are not verified; for all we know it could be a modernist's hand at trying old painting techniques.

All other images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, somehow missed that. I have replaced it was another image that I have uploaded that definately is Thomas Luny on the battle of the Nile. Since I am fairly hopeless when it comes to images, can you provide assistance with Dhatfield's image queries above that I am struggling to understand? Also, some recent edits to the article removed the image sizes which I had set quite large on the request of an author at peer review. There seems to be some confusion on this issue - is it acceptable to set image sizes or not? Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problems with the image descriptions now. Dhatfield (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that Jappalang has done a lot of work on the images (for which I am very grateful) and I think this has probably taken care of it. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have recently added another image that I think excellently illustrates French dispositions before the battle. It is out of copyright, has alt text and should conform with all other guidelines. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Weak support:

  • Why the french were sure of an imminent Irish uprising?
  • This is a slightly tricky question. There is a source referenced in the article that cites the Irish Rebellion as a factor in this campaign in the manner described. It is true that the French and the Irish Rebels had been planning the rebellion since 1794, and twice before French troops had been defeated en route to landings in Ireland, so an uprising there was on the cards at some stage. However, when the actual rebellion broke out in 1798 (precipitated by the arrest of several senior rebels by the British) it took the French by surprise and their reaction was totally inadequate, ending in disaster for both them and the Irish. This is all synthesis on my part, and has not (as far as I am aware) been connected to the campaign other than as already described in the article. I'm reluctant to add any more without reference to new sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if the source hints at it but fails to elaborate, we can do not much about it. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do springs (coil springs?) on anchor cables help to turn anchored ships?
  • Coiling an anchor cable makes it taught (known as "putting springs on a cable"). If done at the bow and stern, the effect is to hold a ship rigid and in position (particularly if, like the British, you were unable to furl your sails in the midst of battle). By releasing these springs, a ship is able to rapidly and effectively turn to meet new dangers or targets without going through the time-consuming process of hauling in the anchor. I'm not sure whether I can properly source this explanation, and in any case I think it is a bit long to go in the article at this point.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be a confusing point. All this time, I was having images of coiled springs and going "that should not be how it was done". I read your explanation above that the "spring" is the tension of the anchor cables instead of any mechanical device. Perhaps a slight explanation is in order, else others might think of metallic springs "poing-ing" off the ropes and hull. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made an error in my reply above - I mentioned this to a friend who knows a lot more about sailing than I do and he attempted to explain it to me. The effect I described above is similar in that the "spring" is formed by the anchor cable itself, not an external device, but one of its great advantages is that you only use one anchor not two. A quick Google search confirmed his explanation (confusing though it is). I will try to briefly clarify this in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (add-on) "... in reference to the rewards of victory or the traditional burial place of British military heroes.": this clause seems to require a source. Jappalang (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have one - Nelson, who was a notorious show-off, famously quoted before the battle that by tomorrow he would have a peerage or Westminster Abbey. Most sources repeat this but I haven't yet seen one explaining it, probably on the assumption that a reader of British naval history would always know what it meant. On Wikipedia this cannot be taken for granted and a reviewer asked me to expand a bit. I have no problem removing it, but it does rather bring your point into conflict with his.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the prose a bit (which seems pretty good in the first place). Content-wise, the article is very comprehensive on the battle. Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the prose edits (although I had to tweak one or two that strayed slightly from the meaning of the sources) and all the image work (you might be interested to have a look at the work in progress at User:Jackyd101/Images of the Battle of the Nile too - not sure what I'll do with it at the moment though). I've done my best to answer your queries above. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, my work load has increased greatly recently (I cannot devote further time here for the moment)... I am putting in a weak support first; if my above issues have been clarified (judged either by the delegate or a concensus by other editors) then consider this a full support. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jacky, your excellent pictures could be better seen if they were slightly larger. I see from above that at some point the picture sizes were changed, but these are such magnificent pictures that add to the quality of the article, so I think you should add the upright=1.? something parameter in the picture code. 1.4-1.75 somewhere in there. That makes it still proportionate, as I understand these things (which I don't understand well, but...). Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that, but it made them MASSIVE, so I've taken it down to 1.1. I don't really understand what I did, but it seems to have improved the situation somewhat.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are problems with punctuation in the image captions, pls review per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [30].

Banksia cuneata edit

Nominator(s): Casliber, Hesperian


This article had a good workout at its Good Article Nomination and I feel it is of quality equivalent to the other seven Banksia featured articles. For a rare and endangered plant, it is as comprehensive as it can possibly be (I think Hesperian and I have seen everything published as such on the plant to date) and has some nice images taken by an editor who made the trek out to where it grows (thanks Gnangarra!)... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Am I allowed to register my '''Support''' here? I fully endorse Cas's assertion that this is as comprehensive as it can possibly be. There are some unpublished conservation reports that we haven't been able to get hold of, but in terms of published material I think we've got the lot. As for "quality equivalent to the other seven", I actually think they are getting better as we go along. Hesperian 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is okay as long as it is clear (which it is) that you're conominating and hence nonimpartial (mwahahahaha) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In measurements, if you spell out the number, you need to spell out the unit of measure (doesn't mean the converse is true). Any of these changes would work in my opinion:
    • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "one to four centimetres (0.4–1.6 in)", or
    • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "1 to 4 centimetres (0.4–1.6 in)", or
    • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "1 to 4 cm (0.4–1.6 in)".
as well as variants such as "to" in the converted range rather than a dash.
A side issue. Personally, I don't like to see a mixture of centimetres and millimetres, but that's only a mild suggestion. But then I think the world would be a much better place if the CGPM had consigned "centi-" and all the other prefixes which are not powers of 1000 to the same fate as the "myria-", now obsolete because it wasn't one of the prefixes adopted in the International System of Units. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but cm are so...convenient. Anyway, changed as suggested. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Current ref 1 (Dept of the Enviroment..) needs a last accessdate
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the references (or give fuller information). I noted CALMNnews... but there may be others.
    • Current refs 23 and 24 ... please add "Australian Goverment" to make them match the formatt of the other governmental agencies.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done the first and 23/24, but not sure about the abbreviation when it is part of a larger name - it is called CALMnews..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article covers the topic well and all facts are referenced, consistant with previous featured Banksia articles. noting small bias Gnangarra 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image concern:

The other images (photos contributed by User:Gnangarra) are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't traced. I downloaded the spatial data and rendered the map in a GIS. Data isn't copyrightable, no matter what the DEWHA have to say about their "maps". What is copyrightable is the design decisions taken in rendering the data into a map: i.e. the map projection, the background colour, line colour and thickness, the colour used to indicate distribution, etc. I made my own design decisions, so I own copyright in these maps. Any resemblance to the WAH images are merely that: resemblance. I don't know if the projection differs—I used geodetic; I don't know what WAH used—I used unbroken black lines throughout, whereas WAH use grey lines for non-provincial boundaries; I use a white background throughout, whereas WAH use light brown for land; we both used a bright red to indicate distribution, but this is utterly obvious, and I've used a smoother distribution boundary; I've cropped the western boundary much tighter than they have. The similarities you see are due not to the map design, which is copyrightable, but rather to the underlying spatial data, which is not copyrightable, and even that is a different version (IBRA 6.1 v IBRA 5.1) Hesperian 15:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Data might be non-copyrightable in the United States, but Australia has copyrights for databases. Substantial use of an Australian copyrighted database constitutues a copyviolation.[33] IBRA's databases are segmentised, so it seems that this map is not using an insignificant portion of its data. Since this could be one of those grey or complex areas of law, I have asked for advice at commons:Commons talk:Image casebook#Re: Maps. Jappalang (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Databases, not data. Australian law essentially recognises that database design is a creative act. I have not made "substantial use of an Australian copyrighted database." A shapefile is not a database; it is nothing like a database. What I have used here is data. A database may be copyrighted, but the data contained therein remains uncopyrightable. The distinction is fundamental. If you write a biography, you have copyright over your text, but not over the sequence of life events you are chronicling. In the same way, you can copyright the way in which you organise data in a database, but the data itself is not copyrightable. Hesperian 12:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From The Australian Copyright council on databasessee PDF for Compliations Copyright does not protect facts or information.... You do not need permission to reproduce particular facts from a compilation (such as a name, address and telephone number from a telephone directory). However, you may need permission to reproduce all or a “substantial part” of a compilation. the map is based less than a third of the overall data from IBRA on the provinces and is then combined with only about 1/130,000 of the data in FloraBase. I dont see any copyright violation in realation to this map. Gnangarra 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and even if it covered the entire country, there is no way a 699×936 pixel raster image could be construed as a substantial part of a high resolution vector data set. Hesperian 13:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian, the criteria is "quality, not quantity" of data used; the detailed geographical lines tend to indicate high fidelity reconstruction. Regardless, Kaldari's arguments (at Commons) seem persuasive. I would like to know how you downloaded the data though. I was unable to locate it at http://www.environment.gov.au/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp (their download interface). Could you give a rough working of how to obtain the data on the image's page (Source)? Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a 699×936 raster image can be used to reconstruct a high-resolution vector image without massive degradation of quality, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.

I had no trouble finding it; just type "IBRA" into the "Search Title:" field and hit the search button. Hesperian 04:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A very thorough treatment of the subject, well supported by photographs. Melburnian (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A nice article, I made these edits, please check for collateral damage. Also, I'd raise the last two subheading to full headings and dump "Uses". That heading is pointless since "Cultivation" says it's useless, and the cultural bit isn't a use in any normal sense of the word Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the help. Hmm, that "Uses" section was my bad, only added recently, because the info on its use as logo and emblem were jammed into the "Discovery and naming" section, where they definitely didn't belong. Can anyone suggest a better home for that bit? Hesperian 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • lead is thin, surely a couple of sentences could be used from the well-developed lifestyle and ecology section?
  • something funky is going on with the taxobox formatting
  • some image caption start with caps, some don't
  • units are given in full (metres, millimetres) and and abbreviated (cm)
  • I'm seeing some other minor defects like missing caps and misplaced punctuation... to save us both the hassle I'll just do a copyedit later today and report back here if anything is amiss.
Good point on lead. Have added a bit. thanks for the tidying. Murphy's Law has come into play with RL issues for me over past few days :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I did a copyedit, please check. In general, I think it looks pretty good, but have the following suggestions: Sasata (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit looks good - only point is if a caption is a clause and not a phrase (i.e. lacks a verb) then it need not have an initial capital or period (which is why I was trying to make them into sentences for conformity) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone likes semicolons. I like them too, but I found their usage here bordering on excessive. In many cases they are being used to link sentences together that I though would do well individually.
My bad - remove at leisure - I am a semicolon addict :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first paragraph of "Life cycle and ecology" doesn't read like "professional prose" to me.
Yeah, it is a bit choppy. I tweaked it a little but there isn't much there to tweak. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • metres is still being spelled out while cm and km are not
(got 'em all now I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the whitespace in "Cultural references" really sticks out, but I'm afraid I don't really have a suggestion how to fix it other than fill it up with more info :)
  • the term "genetic structure" came up in the GA review. I see it's now redlinked, but that doesn't help me to understand the concept any better.
  • do the fungi of Westea or Banksiamyces like to grow on the plant?
Not as far as I know - I think they've been recovered from only a handful of species. Will look into it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption "The 'matchstick' appearance in late bud gives rise to the common name." maybe "gives rise to" -> "suggestive of"
Well, it was/is causative, which "suggestive of" lacks in meaning -I agree it is unusual and will muse on an alternative. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [34].

Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York) edit

Nominator(s): upstateNYer 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm nominating this article now that it has gone through both a GAN and a peer review after that. The GAN was very thorough (at least compared to my others), and to be safe, I just went through a PR that found some other small issues that have now been fixed. This would be a boon to WP:NRHP and WP:NYCD if elevated to FA. upstateNYer 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and is good, except that the maps' alt text needs some work. The alt text for the infobox map should say where Oakwood Cemetary is, in the context of the map; use the |map_alt= parameter of {{Infobox nrhp}}. The alt text for File:Oakwood_Map.svg should not bother to describe the colors used by the map (that is not what the map is for), but should instead convey the map's useful information, namely, the general layout of the cemetery and the location of the chapel, crematorium, etc. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance. Eubulides (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "labels and notes—referred to by the Troy Cemetery Association as "cliff notes"—about the history of objects shown in the photograph."
  • Needs clarification—I cannot figure it out, so it's not likely to make any sense at all to anybody outside the United States. I can't figure out if it is intended as a pun or some other wordplay, an analogy, or what—must be some reason for the quotation marks. There's even a fair chance that whatever it is has gone right over the heads of the contributors to the article. My guess it that there's a real good chance that the word choice by the association has something to do with CliffsNotes (study guides primarily available in the United States), but that's as far as I get. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's precisely the meaning; it's just a play on words. Then again, if you're an outsider that doesn't know what CliffsNotes are, you can just see it as a reference to the name they give the blurbs on the image (i.e. it's a quotation from their webpage). It works either way, whether your 'get it' or not. upstateNYer 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's precisely the meaning? I still don't get it. Is there a "cliff" in the photograph, so that gets involved in the pun in some way? With the lowercase "cliff", that's certainly a possibility. That's one reason it doesn't work either way—if you don't get it, that's an unexplained terminology that's totally baffling, because there is no mention of any cliffs in the area. Or what is the intended subject of these CliffsNotes-like notes--maybe that would help. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • See the word bluff, used explicitly in that section, as well as escarpment in the Geography section. upstateNYer 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, connect the dots;
            1. show that those words have something to do with these "cliff notes" (quotation marks in article).
            2. Escarpment isn't proximate enough in the article for a connection to be made, even if you think most readers will know what it means. Make it clearer, if "cliff" has something to do with those bluffs.
            3. And connect the dots to "complete overview of American history", if there are any dots to be connected—
            4. if there is also a connection to CliffsNotes. That will, of course, entail making some connection, at the very least, between lowercase "cliff" and uppercase "Cliff". I really don't know what the word-play is supposed to involve, even now. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I took the liberty of numbering your issues so I don't miss any. I have also added a more explicit reference. Responses:
              1. There's a reference to the site that specifically uses the term "cliff notes". That is the connection.
              2. Escarpment may not be near the discussion, but the word bluff occurs one sentence before the mention of the phrase; that is more than close enough.
              3. Once again, the connection is a reference. They claim that the view (right or wrong, but cited as such nonetheless, hence "The Troy Cemetery Association claims") offers the most concentrated view of American history.
              4. There is no official connection to CliffsNotes, which makes the capital vs. lowercase C discussion moot. The reference is meant to be a pun, however, should one not understand the pun (and by not understand, I of course mean not recognize), one still has the ability to understand that these notes are on a panoramaic photo overlooking the plain below a cliff, and that they exist on the edge of a cliff (bluff, escarpment, it doesn't matter), hence "cliff notes". Why the quotes? Because it's a phrase they used, therefore I'm quoting it (not withstanding the fact that they also used the quotes). They didn't use capitals, therefore I'm not using capitals. upstateNYer 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not moot by any stretch of the imagination. The potential to confuse readers exists there on several levels. Clear writing dictates that that confusion be removed. The simplest way is probably just to remove all mention of "cliff notes", since you don't seem willing to even take a stab at any tweaking of the wording which might make this clearer. Just because one of your sources uses that term doesn't mean that we need to do so; it certainly doesn't add enough to the article to make up for the confusion it creates. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • By all means, do make it clear why you think the c should be capitalized, because (and you can see my reasons under #4) there is no valid reason because there is no actual connection to CliffsNotes. Explaining outright that there is a very minor pun to the book series would take unnecessary attention from the meat of the article. This is a minute part of the article and is intended as a passing remark, as it is. Explaining it would be like explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get it. Thankfully, we have the fallback that it has a regular and applicable meaning in the text. After going through GAN, PR, and having a number of other editors read through this article, not one has ever made a peep about any issue relating to this sentence. Before anything changes, I'd very much prefer a second opinion. Even the clearest of clear writing will confuse someone; this section is pretty clear if you ask me. upstateNYer 15:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't think the "c" should be capitalized, especially if you make the connection to bluffs clearer. It takes separate wording to make the "C" connection, the other half of the wordplay. Remember, you clearly said above that the wordplay exists. If the connections aren't made, it is a problem. If you cannot think of some uncumbersome way to do that, you should just throw it out as an unnecessary complication. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • But how can the connection to bluffs be any clearer? The word is literally a sentence away from the phrase. And yes, the wordplay is there, but I've made it clear that it is not essential to understand the wordplay because it has a regular underlying meaning that any person can understand; if this were a wordplay only - with no other possible meaning - that would be different. However in this case, the wordplay is supplementary to the actual meaning. That is, if one doesn't get the wordplay, they are not at a loss for understanding the original meaning of the phrase (notes about a view from a cliff/bluff/escarpment). upstateNYer 14:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wikipedia always has to have a lot of experts on the legal issues; maybe somebody can find one of them to comment on whether or not this exposes Wikipedia to trademark-infringement claims. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Now you're just fishing. This term was used in only one document, ever, with no notable claims toward ownership other than the implied copyright. It's not a trademark and it was never intended to be. You use the term CliffsNotes above, on a page in the free encyclopedia that is licensed CC-BY-SA, and that name is trademarked. Why do you have such an issue with a piece of minutia, but can't see that you've done much worse above? I'm liking these things together because they're both ridiculous, not because I think you should go through and delete all the references to CliffsNotes in this discussion. upstateNYer 15:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. On January 5, I reviewed this article and posted my comments on the article's talk page I thought the article was close to FA, and it has since become better. It's professionally written and beautifully illustrated, and it's a fine addition to the encyclopedia. One quibble: I prefer static captions to the dynamic ones with sliders but would not withhold my support on that account. As for the "cliff notes" issue raised by User:Gene Nygaard above, the article accurately quotes and cites the source in the phrase "referred to by the Troy Cemetery Association as 'cliff notes' ". My dictionary defines "bluff" as "a high steep bank" or "cliff". I see no problem here on a literal level. As for the pun, since the source does not acknowledge or explain the pun, Wikipedia is not at liberty to explain it either, since that would involve original research. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're referring to the captions in the gallery of the Mausolea section, which I just realized this morning had scroll bars when I never meant for that to be. I fixed it this morning and they should be correct now. If they aren't, or I'm completely misinterpreting your reference to "dynamic captions", let me know. upstateNYer 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, finetooth, if you cannot explain it without original research, then it seems logical that we cannot use it. The wordplay exists--as the nominator has acknowledged--whether acknowledged or not in the sources used. It can only cause confusion if it is not explained. If it cannot be explained, it cannot be used and still "exemplif[y] our very best work"; there is no rule that we need to use something in our articles just because one of our sources used it. Note also that just as "bluffs" is only one sentence away, so too is "most concentrated and complete overview of American history" only two sentences away in the very same paragraph. A reader is as likely to make the connection to one as to the other, or to both. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I have no proof that it exists. Like I said, the phrase is used once in a newsletter from the cemetery. My acknowledgment of it above is simply my interpretation. I could very well be wrong, but the connection seems way too obvious for there not to be a pun involved (otherwise, why even name these things?). The phrase is backed up by a reference and the pun is not. Therefore you should be judging it based on its literal use, not on any other that may or may not have been intended. upstateNYer 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that newsletter doesn't explicitly say it is connected with bluffs, either, does it? As a matter of fact, the most apparent connection in that picture caption is to "huge amount of American history", and not to "bluffs". Yet you have not only included that one-time, offhand, unexplained remark in a newsletter in your text here, but you have juxtaposed it to an unclear extent with not only "bluffs" but also with "concentrated and complete overview" statement. You have made enough of a connection to imply that both wordplays exist, but you haven't done so clearly enough to avoid confusion. If it were the terminology posted on a metal plaque at the site, that would probably be a different story. What you have now simply doesn't belong here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reponses:
              • Newsletter and "bluff": the newsletter need not explicitly use the word "bluff". I only used it so that the term "cliff" was not overused. It's strictly aesthetic. That said, bluff means cliff. Need a source? See Webster's or Oxford, but that's not going in the article.
              • The "most concentrated and complete overview" comment is from a completely separate reference.
              • What do you mean by "both" wordplays? There is clearly only one, it's not referenced, and it's something that a native speaker of English and person familiar with CliffNotes will most likely catch. However, the main intention is the literal meaning, which is clearly sourced.
              • You have two qualified and experienced reviewers here concurring that this is in fact not confusing, and that is after reading the article multiple times each. The main intention is there, clear as day, and the pun is an added bonus.
              • upstateNYer 23:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Neither wordplay is a literal one. There are no notes about the cliffs; they're about the history. Both wordplays come from the newsletter—and neither is explicitly identified as such there. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Incorrect, they are notes about a view from a cliff, i.e. "cliff notes". You don't have the view without the cliff and you don't have the notes without the view. Therefore, no cliff, no notes, no cliff notes. But that doesn't seem to matter, because you know precisely what they are: "There are no notes about the cliffs; they're about the history." Interestingly, not once in this conversation did anyone explicitly define the literal meaning of the statement until you did in your last post. Clearly you understand it. Also, you have made absolutely no mention of a "double wordplay" until your second to last post, which makes me think you're fishing again. This is not word play and it is clear enough for the general reader, as is proven by the GA and PR reviewers. upstateNYer 05:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the phrase. "Scroll bars" is what I meant. When I checked just now, the "Major General Thomas" image in the Landmarks section still had a scroll bar, and three of the five images in the Mausolea section had scroll bars. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must have to do with how wide you view your browser. I just added two more lines to each set, so it shouldn't be an issue now. upstateNYer 00:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. That fixed the problem. Looks fine now on my screen. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though for "contained roughly 60,000 graves and continues to grow" I'm not convinced that two tenses work well here ? I've read through this a few times since by GA review last year and I find this as a very well-written (and illustrated) and well-referenced article that covers everything I deem of significance for the subject. As for the "cliff notes" commentary. I found this completely understandable (at least as far as is needed to understand the subject matter) when I last reviewed the article and am not of a different opinion today. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Pretty good. Here's my concerns:
  1. Too many images. There's having too few images and a good amount. This makes way too many.
    • I very much disagree with this. The galleries are meant to give necessary architectural examples of mausolea and monuments. I don't think it detracts from or degrades the article; in fact, I think it makes it that much more appealing to the reader.
    There's way too many. The galleries should be removed at the least. They make too much of a mess.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, below you asked me for another image, which I added; it would be the first I'd remove if I had to remove any. I still think this article is not informative enough without the galleries. What specifically about the image usage bothers you (and not just "there's too many"). Galleries are perfectly acceptable in articles, otherwise the <gallery> tag wouldn't exist.
  2. After Citation 52 - split the paragraph in notable internments.
    • Done.
  3. Citations 39 - 51 need delinking after Citation 32 has the wikilinks everywhere, its an eyesore.
    • Done.
  4. References should probably be revamp for cleanliness.
    • Be more specific?
  5. "Funk & Wagnells company" - Capitals
    • Done.
  6. "^ "Parks & Recreation: Uncle Sam Bikeway". Government of Troy, New York. http://www.troyny.gov/recreation/unclesambikeway.html. Retrieved 2009-10-07. " - Put Parks & Recreation in Publisher
    • Actually Parks & Recreation isn't a department, so they aren't the publisher. Just removed that part.
  7. Vanderheyden Bell could use some more expansion.
    • There's nothing to expand upon. I've maxed out the content in the source (which is the only source).
    Look for more. News exists for a reason.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources at that level of specificity do not exist, as far as I'm aware. I wouldn't even expect it in the local paper, but I'm not paying a subscription fee to read old newspaper articles that may or may not have the information on something that's already covered. We're lucky it was even mentioned in the NRHP nom.
  8. The history section could use more images.
    • Added old image of Crematorium, but not sure if it fits well; otherwise, maxed out.
  9. "As of 2009, the cemetery contained roughly 60,000 graves[14] and continues to grow.[2] The Association expects to be able to accept interments until at least the early 23rd century.[2]" - probably should either expand or merge with another paragraph - looks weird.
    • Done. Forgot to do that previously.
  10. There is little description of the man-made lakes here. Details would be helpful.
    • No detail to go off of; also not really important in my opinion. They're man-made using small mountain streams, which is more detail than I think is even warranted, but I included it anyway. What else is worth knowing about a couple ponds?
    Names for one, size, etc.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't have names and sizes can be gaged from the map that's provided, though considering their sizes change substantially based on the season, a number is generally meaningless (this I know from personal experience, so it's OR and doesn't' belong in the article). What would constitute "etc." in this case?

Pretty good, needs work though.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: upstateNYer 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Support.

Prose. Nicely written. A few minor quibbles.
please spell crematorium correctly (caption of 1901 creamtorium--presumably it's not a creamery)
It may make cream as its side job. :) upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh yuck. Remind me not to eat ice cream on my next visit to Troy. Auntieruth55 (talk)
The Association is made up of volunteer lot owners, elected by fellow lot owners. Huh? this could be clarified a little bit, perhaps just reworded.
Tried to be clearer. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With these reinterments, the graves within Oakwood span the entire the history of Troy. "spanned". tense. reinternments. (spelling)
Um, stet. "Inter" (essentially in terra) rather than "intern", methinks. Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth is correct. upstateNYer 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually. Yes.  :)
The main goal of these deals was to increase the Association's operating income. Awkward. To increase its operating income, the Association sold....
Changed it another way. Should be clearer. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and continues to grow, the number continues to grow. Not the cemetery acreage, which apparently continues to shrink.
Fixed. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of converting "a" to "the" in the second paragraph under geography.
Gracias. upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deceased Earl was an early promoter .... the son who died, or the father who died later? Clarify pls.
Changed "Earl" to "son". Clearer now? upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. Pending these tweaks, I'll support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! upstateNYer 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very well written and an interesting read. Answers all the questions I might have about a cemetery. Sources look good and inline citing is done well. I don't think the the "cliff notes" spat above is an issue at all ; it simply is a pun that is sourced and attributed. No issue here, please move on. As for galleries, I have a general dislike for them in articles b/c it is hard to do them well. This article, however, does do them well by not only mentioning the image's subject, but describing some details. Having images to back up the mentions and descriptions is totally appropriate. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: no image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done this. All images are correctly licenced and attributed. Checked through alt text - one missing now added and a grammer mistake corrected. Looks good - Peripitus (Talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Woops, forgot to add the alt text when Mitch asked for another photo in the history section. Good catch. upstateNYer 01:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [35].

Halley's Comet edit

Nominator(s): Serendipodous 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC) User:Kheider, User:Saros136, User:Masursky, User:Ruslik0[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has completed peer review, and is I think ready for consideration. Serendipodous 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary W. Kronk is a science writer whose work has been favorably reviewed in science journals. I think he can be considered a reliable source. Other issues solved. Serendipodous 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what did you replace the non-Kronk refs with? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order: [36], [37], [38], [39] (3 for 1) and [40] (the source the source used). I removed Vsekhsvyatsky. Serendipodous 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "in the realm of 300–400 K (27–127 °C)."
    • That conversion result has far too much precision for an "in the realm of" number; even 30 to 130 °C would overstate it, but that's probably as good as we can reasonably expect
    • Don't use hyphens to indicate a range when some of the numbers might be negative. It is far too confusing. Use "to" when you have things like degrees Celsius.
  • add spaces between numbers and unit symbols. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done I think. Serendipodous 02:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and a few comments:
    • official designation by whom? IAU?
    • I would prefer having "Apparitions" right after the computation section since both of them refer to the comet's historic observations.
    • try to find a better name than "Designation" (it should probably be pluralized anyways); also, did you consider merging that table into the previous section? Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to your last point, it was originally merged together, but the result was tagged in peer review for being too listy. Serendipodous 18:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments - I'll make straightforward copyedits (please revert if I change the meaning accidentally), and place queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comet Halley - hmm, I've never heard it called thus...?
most famous - sounds like a film star.. "best-known"?

The above points are minor quibbles. I made some minor tweaks but am happy with how it stands. Some paragraphs are a little small but hard to combine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the record, "Comet Halley" is actually the name astronomers prefer. Modern astronomical parlance places the name second, as in Comet Hyakutake or Comet Hale-Bopp. But Halley's Comet was named before the practice became standard. Serendipodous 02:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support—It looks to be FA worthy.

Comment—Looks good so far, but I think it still needs a little work:
  • The lead doesn't seem to summarize parts of the article, particularly the structure and composition section.
  • The first paragraph of the "Computation of orbit" section consists of one short and one very long sentence. That makes it a little awkward to read aloud, for example. Please consider splitting into 2–3 palatable sentences.
  • What does '28.6' mean for an apparent magnitude? It seems phenomenally low. Is that the current value? As of what date?
  • The article contains "Halley-type comets" and "Halley type comets". Please be consistent.
  • "Changes in the flow of the solar wind can cause disconnection events; or the tail completely breaking off from the nucleus." The 'or' here is ambiguous, since it makes the sentence seem like it may be discussing two different phenomenon. Is that intended? Perhaps "..., where the tail..."?
  • "...the vast size..." is vague. Please give some sample values.
  • The citations need work:
    • There are inconsistent author naming schemes. For example, "G. Cevolani, G. Bortolotti and A. Hajduk", "RZ Sagdeev; PE Elyasberg; VI Moroz", "S. J. Peale; Jack J. Lissauer", and "Gladman, B.; Kavelaars, J.; Petit, J.-M.; Ashby, M. L. N.; Parker, J.; Coffey, J.; Jones, R. L.; Rousselot, P." Please pick one scheme and stick with it.
    • Is there a URL for "In Situ Observations of Cometary Nuclei"?
    • Are there ISBNs for "A Jewish Understanding of the World", "Cometography" and "Records of Halley's Comet on Babylonian tablets"? If not, perhaps add some additional publication info.
      • The format of the book citations is inconsistent. Compare, for example, Halley & His Comet to the Cometography citations. Does one use the citation template and the other not? Any cite with an ISBN should look pretty similar. Also the Comet Lore ref. lacks location information.—RJH (talk)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think. Serendipodous 17:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost.—RJH (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Is that what you wanted? Serendipodous 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the remainder. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—I have a minor "thing" for outer space—thanks partly to book clubs and shoot 'em ups—so I looked a bit more closely at the prose, minus most of "Structure and composition" and "Apparitions".

  • No dab links or dead external links—very nice.
  • Alt text looks ok, since Halley is described in the text, but mixes "Comet Halley" and "Halley's Comet" (which'll it be!?). The "orbits of three periodic comets" image should get larger text—its thumbnail does not show the labels well.
  • Dates appear to be Month Day, Year in text andISO style in refs. I see a few Month Day, Year ref dates that should be changed for consistency. Update, 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC): There's a mix of "Day Month Year" without comma, "Month Day, Year", and now "Day Month, Year" with comma—again, use one for prose and one (same or different) for refs.
OK. Is that it? Serendipodous 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both prose and ref dates are consistent now, and anyone who doesn't like "Day Month, Year" with the comma can easily replace it with the no-comma style. Good job. --an odd name 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Halley's Comet get that name, anyway? Can you verify this part from the Edmond Halley article? (common knowledge?)
    "In 1705, applying historical astronomy methods, he published Synopsis Astronomia Cometicae, which stated his belief that the comet sightings of 1456, 1531, 1607, and 1682 related to the same comet, which he predicted would return in 1758. Halley did not live to witness the comet's return, but when it did, the comet became generally known as Halley's Comet."
  • Why "rhyming with valley" twice in "Pronunciation"? (Are you concerned that the IPA text won't show up?)
  • "Halley is classified as a periodic or short-period comet; a descriptor for comets with orbits lasting 200 years or less."—maybe "Halley is classified as a periodic or short-period comet, one with an orbit lasting 200 years or less."
  • "Its closest distance to the Sun called perihelion"—I didn't know distances had cellphones! Maybe "Its closest distance to the Sun (perihelion) "? (There are already a lot of commas and parens in the sentence—should it be split? I'd like a third opinion.)
  • "that has its inner edge of 20,000–50,000 AU."—change "its" to "an"?
  • "Because its orbit comes close to Earth's in two places ..."—try expanding this sentence so that it doesn't look like a widow. If you can cleanly combine it with a prior paragraph, that'll work as well.
  • The "peanut" part should clarify that it's an unshelled nut, not the peanut shell.
  • "Two Space Shuttle missions—the ill-fated STS-51-L (the Challenger disaster)"—perhaps "... (ended by the Challenger disaster)"?
  • (added on 03:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)) "The media, despite the pleas of astronomers, wove sensational tales of mass cyanide poisoning engulfing the planet."—is this really neutral? The NYT article that gave Camille Flammarion's opinion says "Most astronomers do not agree with Flammarion" wrt whether the tail would even hit Earth, let alone that the cyanogen would reach people unchanged. The first two paragraphs and title are more concerning, but the tail was (or is) poisonous to some degree (until hitting the atmo). I'm not convinced this was media sensationalism (given just refs 65 and 66) so much as reader overreaction. Anyone else have thoughts?
Neutralised a bit. Serendipodous 13:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very famous comet that needs a great article. At a glance, it doesn't look bad. --an odd name 04:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly when Halley's Comet became Halley's Comet. I could try to look it up, but I'm not sure I'd find anything. I'm not sure what you mean by "should get larger text". I wasn't concerned that IPA wouldn't show up, but that people's eyes would glaze over the IPA. Serendipodous 11:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not sure what you mean by 'should get larger text'."—The text in the image itself (File:Orbits of periodic comets.svg) should be enlarged so that it shows up as more than just fuzzy lines in the 300px thumbnail. You can also make the thumbnail 400px, but it still won't be readable, and anything bigger would probably be too wide unless you use a panorama or such. (I'm not talking about making its alt or caption text bigger; those look ok.) --an odd name 11:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you asked the uploader about File:Halleys comet.jpg being an own work or not, but he has not responded (and I do not think he will). This image needs to be removed from the article until a response is given or a replacement is found. The rest of the images look fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guy updated the same day an image from the British Museum. It might be that he took both of them at the same time? Nergaal (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Orbits of periodic comets.svg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. For self-made images, this would be an explicit assertion of authorship. Source for the orbital information should also be provided.
      Contacted the author Serendipodous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I referenced JPL's orbital simulation... -- Kheider (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I subbed another image. Does it meet the criteria or not? Serendipodous 10:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Halley Giotto.jpg - NFCC#10C requires a "specific" rationale and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed" rationale. "To illustrate the nucleus of Halley's Comet, an important aspect of the article's subject" is not a rationale, but a function. What significant contribution to the reader's understanding is the image intended to make?
      Done. Serendipodous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Tapestry of bayeux10.jpg - The Tapestry of Bayeux is not a publication (the photo thereof is a derivative). The license should be one based solely on a p.m.a. duration, not publication.
      I don't know what this means. Serendipodous 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I also do not agree. The photo is a faithfuls reproduction of a 2D art work and lacks any originality itself, therefore no copyright subsists in this photo. The only copyright that has ever existed is the copyright of the original work, which, however, expired long ago. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't agree with what? Nowhere have I said there is a copyright in the photo or the tapestry. Please read critically; this is an issue regarding the choice of license template. Unpublished works (the tapestry) have terms based on life of the author (p.m.a.), not publication. It's a non sequitur to have a publication-based license. Эlcobbola talk 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you please direct me to the proper template, so that I can upload it? Serendipodous 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      As I've said, "The license should be one based solely on a p.m.a. duration" and "It's a non sequitur to have a publication-based license". It already has a correct license; the issue is that it has a second, inappropriate license. Just remove the publication-based license. Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You said "derivative (work)", which means that you assumed that the image has some originality. Since there is no originality, it is not a derivative work—it is just a slavish copy. In addition, a reproduction of the tapestry was published in 1856, therefore both templates are applicable. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      A derivative work is a defined term and has nothing to do with originality. I mentioned it because I assumed whoever applied the bonus publication license may have meant that license to apply to the photo. Publication would have to have occurred with consent of the copyright holder to be genuine; the creator of the tapestry did not publish it in 1856. This is not difficult. Эlcobbola talk 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Serendipodous 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Giotto - Scrovegni - -18- - Adoration of the Magi.jpg - Needs a verifable source.
      Well, the guy who uploaded it hasn't edited since 2007, so if you feel that bad about it, delete it. Serendipodous 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Remedies are to remove the image from the article or locate a source. Эlcobbola talk 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no way to locate the source, because the guy who uploaded it doesn't edit anymore. My point is that it's not just in this article, so if you want me to delete it from this one it should be deleted from all of them. Serendipodous 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Other articles are not at FAC. This article needs to satisfy WP:WIAFA and WP:IUP. It currently does not. Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Serendipodous 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not very difficult to find actually (or this). Ruslik_Zero 10:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Halley's Comet, 1910.JPG - Source indicates date of creation only. When was it published? How can the pre-1.1.1923 publication license be substantiated?
      Done. Serendipodous 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Comet Halley.jpg - Does not seem to attribute the correct author (Kuiper Airborne Observatory, C141 aircraft April 8/9, 1986, New Zealand Expedition, per the description and source). Эlcobbola talk 16:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Serendipodous 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: File:AnimatedOrbitOf1PHalley.gif should have a source for the orbital information. Эlcobbola talk 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I actually do not know whether I can support or not, because I contributed some material to the article and copy-edited it, but the text looks good now. Ruslik_Zero 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: please review for WP:OVERLINKing, and there are several instances of telling the reader to "see above" or "see below". This should be avoided if possible (indicates problems in organiational structure of article), but if it must be done, at least say "where". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one, as it wasn't necessary. I added an internal link to the other, but I don't think I can combine it. Serendipodous 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinks removed. Serendipodous 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [41].

Jay Pritzker Pavilion edit

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]


This FAC is an attempt to qualify Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park for a promotion from WP:GT to WP:FT on behalf of WP:CHICAGO. It has resulted from a collaborative effort between me and Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), who has been quite involved in this template article after volunteering to create a great map for the articles. I had done a lot of research on this article and needed his copyediting expertise. I also hoped to get him involved in the article that could potentially bring success to WP:CHIFTD. The article has also benefited from copyediting by Michael Devore and image assistance by Torsodog. Torsodog was also helpful in the longest-running WP:PR that I have ever been involved in (Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1), which started in September and closed in December and which was followed by Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive2. I think the article is now of sufficient quality to be a WP:FA and am nominating it for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank Brianboulton and Doncram for their helpful suggestions in the second peer review and Eubulides for looking at the alt text, as well as those Tony thanked above (and Tony for including me in the nomination). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.citymayors.com/
      • It is a professional think tank.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • this makes it reliable on architectural matters? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Ealdgyth. The citymayors website is used as a ref for the location of Millennium Park and a very brief history of the site before development. The first chapter of Gilfoyle's book is also used as a ref here, so if need be the citymayors.com ref could be dropped, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, then. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks, I removed it just now - not sure what is holding up this FAC, but this was about the only unresolved thing I could find. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Delacoma ref needs a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I carried out a detailed peer review last month, since when various adjustments have been made to the article. Among material added is this sentence: "docents are available for the music festival rehearsals, which are well-attended." "Docent" is by no means an everyday word, and I think its use here unjustified, particularly as the link (which 95% of your readers will need to use) is spectacurlarly useless for your purposes, dealing with a different kind of docent. I strongly advise changing the word. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intended meaning is Museum docent. I have swapped out docent for the better link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I forgot the American English / British English confusion over wikt:docent. I changed the lead to read ...trained guides are available for the music festival rehearsals, which are well-attended. and then in the body of the article left Tony's link to museum docent but tweaked the wording: The festival is represented by a staff of trained guides, called docents, that field questions and provide educational talks during the rehearsals.[89] Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments, hoping to support: I gave this a fairly extensive review at its most recent PR and hope to be supporting soon. However, I have a few issues which are just a bit more than quibbles, some which are carried over from my review.

(later:) I am satisfied with the responses to my points, detailed below, and have moved to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Design and development section: Some information needs to be reordered. We should know about the Pritzker family's decision to fund the project, and who Jay Pritzker was, before being told that his widow was unimpressed with the original design. I know some of this is covered in the first para of the lead, but the lead should be regarded as a separate entity from the body of the text.
    • Thank you for pointing this out. I have rewritten the section some to introduce the Prizkers, their prize and Gehry first, then discuss the pavilion design. It is not 100% clear to me when the Pritzker family / Cindy Pritzker decided to fund the pavilion. My understanding is that the city made a very preliminary design first, and then shopped it around to potential donors. This is what Cindy was unimpressed with. She was interested in the pavilion idea, but wanted to have a Gehry-designed bandshell. Tony, is this correct? If so, I will try to make this clearer in the article too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have it cited clearly to a statement with this sentiment. We can only summarize the secondary sources as you have. You seem to have the idea although you may have the wording a bit close to the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I have rewritten the statement to avoid any appearance of plagiarism, and just used the direct quotation about CIndy Pritzker mandating Frank Gehry's redesign. As a note to reviewers, I do not have access to the printed sources that Tony used. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As an experiment, I have combined the second and third paragraphs, as I think this better integrates the introductory info on Pritzer with the main theme of the section. By all means revert this if you think it doesn't work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I think that it does read better this way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Note: After a further reading of the Design and development section I was still unsatisfied with it, so I have done further copyedits and text rearrangement. In particular I have moved what I think is the main declarative sentence for the section to the beginning, and made a few adjustments later on to protect the chronology and maintain the narrative flow. Personally I am happy with the section now, but please say if I have inadvertently created problems. Or tweak as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • It seems fine to me - thanks very much for your edits, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acoustics section: tiny point - remove redundant "also" from final line of second para. Overall, some of the language in this section is a little too close to being promotional. We have two "innovatives" and one "unique features". This language needs to be toned down.
    • Thanks, I rewrote parts of this to try and remove the promotional language. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversies:
    • What was the outcome of the Petrillo suit?
      • As far as I know, no suit was actually filed (they just threatened to sue according the article cited). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Previously when a new perforance venue was added to grant park the Petrillo name was transferred to it. In this case the old structure was kept so there was not much to argue about, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Tony - do you have reference(s) for this? It is not in the Petrillo Music Shell article that I could see, but if there is a ref, we could add a sentence saying this to this article to make the reasoning of the Petrillo family clearer. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Amos, a classically trained musician who chose only piano and organ accompaniment on her concert, earned positive reviews as the inaugural rock and roll performer in a venue that regularly hosts classical music." Where is the "contoversy" in that statement?
    • I am unconvinced that the disputes surrounding bottles and beverages amount to a "controversy", or indeed are significant enough to warrant mention, at least in this level of detail.
  • Events: Shouldn't Obama be recognised as the surrent US president? Otherwise the section could perhaps lose 100 or so words of froth (e.g "on Saturday mornings in the summer, the Great Lawn under the trellis hosts workouts such as yoga and pilates", "Events at the Pritzker Pavilion are not just limited to the summer months", the seating kerfuffle at the Decembrists' concert).
    • Added (who was later elected United States President), which is probably better than saying current President because that will become dated at some point. Not sure how that relates to froth. The yoga and pilates is a big deal. We should probably have a picture of that. Would something like this benefit the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That particular picture does not do a lot for me - it is hard to tell what the people are doing. I will take a look at the other items. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I have removed the "Events at the Pritzker Pavilion are not just limited to the summer months" sentence and the one about multimedia in Nove 2007 (as it was mentioned again later in the article). I trimmed the yoga and pilates sentence, but kept it as it is not something you'd expect at a bandshell. At the Decembrists paragraph, I combined three sentences on attendance into one, removed anopther sentence, and trimmed what was left. I kept the rest because it mentions a few things not found elsewhere in the article: season ticket holders for the seating section and barriers between the seats and Great Lawn. Here is a diff. Is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: "the supporting backside along Randolph Street". Users of AmEng may be unaware that in BritEng "backside" is a euphemism for what Americans call "ass", so you can see how this sentence reads oddly to us Brits (especially the bit about it being "not pleasing to the eye." Any chance of a reword?
    • Whoops! It can have the same meaning in AmEng, but that did not occur to me before - thanks. Changed to the supporting north side of the structure along Randolph Street - is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the peer review and your comments here - will work on the points you've raised next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help at PR and now and for the support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments copied from my user page) Hi. Good to see this at FAC. Can I recommend you add File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg as the main image in the infobox instead as the main image should be an overivew of the whole complex rather than a restricted view in a concert.... I haven't switched images myself as I know you are often very strict with image layout in the article. If possible I'd recommend somebody creates a montage which could combine the two images or even one or two others in the main image, but I think File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg would be far better as the main than the one at present and immediately gices an understanding of the site... Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current main image was chosen at a recent PR to show the audience and the trellis system simultaneously.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the lead image shows the view of the pavilion most concertgoers see. While I like the view from the the skyscraper (and note that it is already used as the second photo in the article), it is a poor view of the iconic stainless steel proscenium, so I prefer the current lead photo. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried making the requested double image and adding it to the article's infobox. Also moved the map right and down a bit to avoid the longer infobox (may be better on the left). What does everyone think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As poor quality as the original main image was, the sky view is terrible quality and pales in comparison to the other one. I will tolerate the double image if there is a strong preference, but that image is not so great. It has the proper perspective, but I fear people may look at that image and question the article's FA-worthiness. The image belongs in the article, but I prefer File:View of the Chicago skyline from 340 on the Park.jpg as a view from afar.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can make a composite with the current top image and the side view you like better (probably crop the bottom and left side of that a bit), but I want to make sure that it is OK with Dr. Blofeld before putting the work into it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that the side view might replace the current overhead, which could be moved to the first image position in the text. Maybe a composite would be O.K., but you are still working with a low quality image for the overhead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You could try it, see what it looks like. Yes the quality is not as good on the overhead. But when I said about making a montage I was thinking of more like four images arranged two by two and the scaled down. I would not object to such an arrangement or to see a side view of the pavilion... Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to swap in the higher quality side view. I can not stand to see such a low quality image as a main image on an FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. It looks like Ruhrfisch used some sort of two image montage. I will wait for him to make the switch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, I am not 100% sure what you mean here - sounds like you want to add another image to the article. I would like to hear from Dr. Blofeld, who requested the composite originally. I do not think there is room in the article for an additional image, but perhaps the current side view (from WIllis Tower) could be removed? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of a montage like File:CityChicagoMontage.jpg but with say, four images??. You could include this image... A good stage image etc... Plenty of choice from flickr and the commons to compose a high quality montage... Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like the former, but the latter is a great shot of the much talked about rehearsal from the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I will try to make a two by two montage with the current lead image (crowd at Beethoven's Ninth), the rehearsal image from Dr. Blofeld, the aerial side view Tony likes, and one other. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Then, I would move the overhead view of the park to be left aligned by the second paragraph of the main text, which is a less high profile position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about File:JayPritzkerPavillionSP.JPG as the fourth image in the montage? Or is there something people want specifically to be shown? Let's wait and see how the article layout looks with the montage then put the aerial back in. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you could lay the montage out like the main Chicago image and have three along the top and then use the long flickr image along the bottom that Tony likes. Basically like the Chicago one but without three images underneath so there are four images three and then one. A trial error really, see what looks best.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I did not like that one. However, if we are going for a montage, we should try to get consent for the Yoga image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will make a two by two montage as originally suggested by Dr. Blofeld above. Tony, for now I will make it with the similar free image I suggested as the fourth image above, and if you want to ask for permission on the yoga image I can add that later in its place (if they release it). Dr. Blofeld, the Chicago composite is displayed only 315 pixels wide. The three images side by side are all vertical format, so having them each only about 100 px wide is OK. My fear is that three horizontal images side by side would look too small. I can try to add the panorama to the bottom of the two by two montage I make. My thought it that we already have a stunning panorama at the bottom of the article and I like that, not having a tiny panorama at the bottom of the lead image montage. Let's see how it looks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made a composite of four images and added it to the article. I am not good at writing alt text quickly so left that undone for now - if people like it, I can add it. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image looks great. I still hope to get an image of the Yoga in the article. Next summer I or Torsodog will have to get one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Big improvement, thanks for doing that. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added alt text for the composite. I restored the caption and alt text for the aerial view, so that was (I believe) checked in the image review. I will ask ZScout to review the new composite (all four images in it are on Commons too). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is (unnecessary) repetition within close proximity when you say the Pritzkers donated $15 million twice. I think you only need to mention this once, at least not so close to each other. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In the end, budget limitations and architectural aspirations caused compromises that left many elements in their most straightforward form, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete". A little awkward "caused compromises", in their most straightforward form" , I'm also not sure what you mean exactly by "architectural aspirations" etc, lack of architectural ideas or what? Surely bare casing is unlikely to be a case of lacking ideas? Please clarify this, maybe something like "In the end, a tight budget forced the developers to leave parts of the structure uncased, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete." or something like that.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I read aspirations as plans (do not have the print source) and changed it to In the end, budget limitations led to compromises with the original architectural plan that left many elements in their most straightforward form, such as exposed pipes and conduits, or rough concrete. Is this clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Pritzker Pavilion is the first permanent outdoor installation of the LARES system in the United States. ". Citation needed to support such a strong claim. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I added a ref - it was already used for at the end of following sentence, but this way it is clearer which ref is used. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could use this source to comment that some people criticised the obstruction from the "ugly concrete", (near the bottom of Tribune article). Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, it is very specific criticism of the placement of the sound console But the biggest design miscalculation was Gehry's locating the computerized sound console at the center of the seating area. This ugly concrete structure obstructs views and must move. I will add a mention of it to the article (also talks about the sound not being balanced well on opening day concert). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added von Rhein's critical review of both the opening night sound quality and the ugly sound console to the article (two places). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Might just want to check to see if there are any other criticisms so balance it out a bit but seems OK.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the terms "ugly concrete structure" and "computerized sound console" are conflated in the Tribune article. The reviewer presents them as one and the same thing. Actually, the ugly concrete structure is a wall surrounding a platform topped by a clumsy, boxy wood and canvas, gray-painted rain and sun cover which moves forward or back in a track to enable the sound operator to see what is on the LCD displays of the "computerized sound console" and to protect it from rain. The mixing console is atop the concrete platform and under the boxy covering. Without the horrible-looking boxy cover, the sound crew would not be able to see to operate the Digico D5 console in the daytime because of glare. If they had selected an old-school analog mixing console, there would not be this problem. Operations in twilight and darker are okay for the crew. Those times would only need the cover for rain. It's hideous, and blocks views, as is clearly seen here, here and here in these photos and here in this seating layout. By the way, the Pavilion calls this structure the "sound booth" which is where you would go to get assisted listening devices. In the article, you could write that, if he could, Gehry would "scrap the big box of a sound booth that sprang up like a weed in the center of the pavilion's seating," that is, if you think this source is reliable enough. That section of the construction is Beeby's design, not Gehry's, but the clumsy sound booth awning may be an ad hoc design by the sound contractor. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I changed the sentence to A review in the Chicago Tribune criticized the "ugly concrete structure" surrounding the mixing console in the midst of the fixed seats as the pavilion's "biggest design miscalculation", and called for it be moved. I think the Reader is a reliable source and will add the Gehry statement next. I also found two books on positioning the mixing console here and here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Now that my concerns have been addressed I think this is featured quality. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Binksternet. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the sound console and support, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I leaned in and performed some fixes per guideline at WP:DASH. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for doing that! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out - it has been fixed (was added since the FAC began). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Jay_Pritzker_Pavilion I'm seeing a bunch of URL problems with redirects, a truncation, a 404, an expiring link, a login required, registrations required and a dead link. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, one of the supposed deadl inks (Chicago FAQ) still works, the other one (Chicago 2016 Olympics) is gone, so I commented it out - the Sun-Times ref backs up what it says anyway. I added "subscription required" to the three restricted access refs (Economist and Financial Times). The rest of the problems are, for the most part, News Bank refs, or a few direct links to the newspaper's websites. Since the publication data for all of these refs is also given, even if the internet version disappears, they are still OK as refs (someone could look up the paper on microfilm, for example). I am not sure if NewsBank is having a problem or what. Tony, can you figure this out? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message about the newsbank links. Current refs 50, 52 and 53 open, but 51 does not. Trying to figure out what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all the problematic newsbank links. Let me know if you are having any more problems with them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony. I note the link checker seems to turn all NewsBank links green and still says the Chicago FAQ is dead (though it works). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lookin' good, folks. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [42].

Johann von Klenau edit

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...it has passed all the requisite reviews (GA, WP Military History A), it meets the requirements of notability, comprehensiveness and focus. I think its illustrations are in line with requirements, and the sourcing is in order., Furthermore, the subject—Austrian general in the Napoleonic Wars—is of broad interest to readers. French generals are well-covered in Wikipedia articles, but the generals of the Coalition(s) are not. Thanks for reading! I look forward to your comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have I. Don't worry about it. Brianboulton (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, what national variety of English do they speak in Austria? Parsecboy (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the rules. It doesn't matter "what national variety of English they speak in Austria". What matters is that the addition of these conversion templates has improperly put those -re endings into the article, contrary to the usage in the rest of the article. It is a change that is improper according to the MoS. What matters is that when such a widely used template defaults to a particular variety of English, rather than requiring all users to specify the variety of English, then somebody better be watching or we could just as well throw the long-standing WP:ENGVAR rules right out the window. FA review is supposed to be checking whether articles are written in accordance to our policies; in this particular case, it doesn't seem to be done. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify one or more of these improper -re endings that have been introduced into this article as a result of the convert template. That might be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They had been fixed before my last post. Thanks to whoever did it; now just don't add any new ones without the sp= parameter. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed them. I'm still wondering what black boxes are, and what they have to do with the convert template. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When all else fails, try black box. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
waaaaayyyyy too esoteric for me.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just 'read' the picture. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've only read the lead so far, but here are a couple of points:

  • "Handschuhsheim" should be linked in the lead. "Wagram" could be linked to Deutsch-Wagram. The military unit "brigade" probablyprequires a link, too. You have linked the rank of "lieutenant field marshal" to "field marshal", presumably not the same rank.
No, Lt. Field Marshal is one of the variants of field marshal and covered in the article. The link to brigade would be to a modern brigade, which was not the same in the early 1800s. The article on brigade is clearly not about the early-modern and Napoleonic brigade, and there is nothing comparable in wikipedia that I could find. The rank of field marshal is a general, and more or less comparable. Also, the link to Lieutenant field marshal redirects to field marshal. Wagram could be linked to Deutsch-Wagram, however, I'm referring to the battles, not the towns. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit worried by the sentence: "Klenau remains arguably among the best of the field generals...", particular as, so far as I can see, this is supported in the text only by the statement: "Many considered General of the Cavalry Count von Klenau one of the best Austrian corps commanders of his age,..." with no indication as to who these "many" are (there is also a tense issue with "considered", but leave that aside for now).
I can expand this in the text. Or I can remove it from the lead. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and give the article a proper run through later. Brianboulton (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I have not been able to give this a thorough prose review, but I have read through it, with some observations listed below. I also made a few copyedits on the way. The military detail is extremely good and thorough, in line with the standards of your other Wikipedia contributions. However, I found that the article ended rather suddenly; it is common for biographical articles to conclude with some sort of assessment or "legacy" section, as is the case with other military figures who have reached FA status, and there seems to be a need for such a section here. How have the military historians assessed him, for example in comparison with the other commanders of this era? A shortish section dealing with Klenau's historical standing and reputation would round the article off.

  • Early career: Strictly, Bohemia is not "the present-day Czech republic" but "within the present-day Czech Republic", of which it occupies about 65%. fixed.
  • "plus Portugal..." etc is a little inelegant, and "in addition to " and "together with" are worse. Perhaps "and also Portugal..."? fixed.
  • Most of the conversions in the article are from kilometers to miles. Suddenly we have "12-mile (19 km)". Any reason? fixed
  • "In 1796, in the Italian theater, Klenau demonstrated again his field command flexibility and confidence." I feel that sentences like this should be more directly related to sources, so that they don't appear to be editorial judgements. it is cited.
    • I believe you...but the cite, presumably [18} (Boycott-Brown) is a long way away, so the sentence in question looks like a bit of editorialising even though it isn't. It would be better to rephrase. e.g. "In 1796, in the Italian theater, Klenau demonstrated again what Boycott-Brown describes as his field command flexibility and confidence." Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No the cite is directly after the sentence. Ebert. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What sentence are you looking at? The sentence I am querying is the first in the "Action in the Italian Theater" section, which reads as I have quoted above. It does not carry a citation. The nearest citation to it is about six lines further down, and is [18] which is Boycott-Brown, not Ebert. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found what you meant. That was one of those transitional sentences. I just took it out. Probably not as smooth a transition, but... Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two-to-one" is normally written as three words, not with hyphens. fixed
  • "but 2,000 captured,..." doesn't seem like a "but" clause to me. Connector should be "and". fixed
  • Another miles to km conversion: 4.7 miles (8 km) fixed
  • "the Charles' army" Odd use of apostrophe, and why "the"? You wouldn't refer to "the Rommel's army". Conventional English form would be "Charles's army". just a remnant from earlier revision. Fixed.
  • Jarring prose: "requisite request". Perhaps "mandatory" or "obligatory" fixed
  • "complete military defeat in 1813-1814 campaigns," sounds as though a "the" is missing. fixed
  • The "Background" and "Third Coalition" subsections of he Napoleonic Wars section take the story away from Klenau's narrative, dealing as they do with events (e.g. Austerlitz) in which Klenau played no part. While I understand the need for background and context, perhaps a little too much has been included here. Links to other articles might be used to limit the need for explanatory prose here. considerably shortened, used notes
  • Continuing this trend, the following section, "Danube campaign: Road to Ulm" mentions Klenau in the first line, and the last line mentions his release from capture. Nothing at all about what he did in the campaign. This lack of focus on the object of the article is beginning to seem a problem. there was some discussion of his single victory at Haslach, but it seemed lost in the text, so I've vamped it up a bit. It was a 3 month campaign, with a single victory (Klenau's), and the campaign concluded with the surrender of the entire Austrian army.

That's it, really. A fine article which I hope I shall be supporting soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

made notes on fixes. Re Legacy. There is very little about him. No definitive Biography, as yet, partly, probably, because the emphasis in Napoleonic literature is usually on the French, and only now beginning to focus on the generals in other armies. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the material for a "legacy" section does not exist, did military historians assess his career and come to any conclusions about it? An earlier version of the article included a sentence: "Many considered General of the Cavalry Count von Klenau one of the best Austrian corps commanders of his age, for his aggressiveness, his confidence and his talent," cited to a German source. Is it possible to identify some of the "many" , and summarise what they said?
Response copied to article talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: responses to my various concerns, as detailed above, have been satisfactory. I am confident that the MilHist review process will have established the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the article. Any remaining concerns are likely to be niggles, and I am pleased to give support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding the portrait in the infobox - The white square around the portrait doesn't look good in the gray infobox. Is this an original part of the portrait, or can it be removed, alt. coloured grey. (see for example File:Pontiac chief.png) Is there any information on the painter, perhaps an wikilink? Since nearly all historical paintings were pov, painter and an approximated creation date would also be good for the other paintings. See, for example Pontiac's Rebellion The Ministry (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it doesn't look that great. I have another copy in color, if you think that would look better. As far as where it is from... Approximate creation date would be 1813-1815, because of the medals he is wearing. I'll see what I can find on the others, but these are mostly lithographs from 19th century books on the Napoleonic and fr. Revolutionary wars which have been copied into web service. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
all the other images have (in commons or on the wiki page) complete and translated info. The portrait has no info that I can find, other than that it is widely distributed. . I have no other source information. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I extensively reviewed this in the MILHIST A-class review and am satisfied that it now meets the FA criteria. One quick comment: in the "1800 Campaign in Swabia" section, can you pick one of the images to keep? One of the two will always be shoved into the following "Napoleonic Wars" section. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the images around so that they don't overlap with the following sections. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on refs need more than a little work, or perhaps simply need to be explained. Inconsistent etc., hard to know how to proceed. Forex, full refs given twice for books – once in notes, once in Bibliography. Why duplicate? And I've found a couple that are given in the notes but not the refs, but I can't tell whether or not this is deliberate. • Ling.Nut 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything cited in full on first mention. In some cases, as in the Digby Smith Databook, if I've cited a battle page, if it is not obvious which battle, I include the name of the battle. If it is the only battle on the page, I don't include the name. Bibliography includes complete citations of all sources. I don't use the ref template, makes me crazy when I'm using it, and it doesn't allow me to add explanatory notes, nor to add two citations in the same footnote. I don't like reading articles that have strings of numbers either. I'm just old fashioned. I also use the AHA style for citations and bib and they are (should be) consistent in the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - There are several instances where sentences like this one appears, “In his early military career Klenau demonstrated, not only at Zemon but also in the skirmishing and raids of 1778–1779, the attributes required of a successful cavalry officer: the military acumen to evaluate a situation, the flexibility to adjust his plans on a moment's notice, and the personal courage to take the same risks he demanded of his men.” I know that they have proper refs, but since they are value judgements I would much rather you wrote “According to ‘historian/writer/whatever’ Jon Doe, Klenau demonstrated...” (especially when the

source is the one hundred years old ADB) Just as we in an article about a movie writes "According to critic Jon Doe, the movie is funny" instead of just “The movie is funny.”

So and so said... They are all sourced to at least one citation, and in most cases, more than one, thus it is difficult to say a single historian said it, and cumbersome to say, Smith, Kudrna, Castle, Ebert, the ADB author who uses only his initials, and Gates say that.... Also, I've paraphrased the statement to accommodate what all of them have said, not what a single individual has said. This is a writing style that I use, rather than talk about what individual authors have said, I focus on the subject of the biography. In other types of articles, I handle the situation differently when I'm discussing an historiographic school, but in biographies, this is the rut I've adopted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Old sources. Just because they are old doesn't make them useful. The ADB is particularly interesting for its wealth of detail. I rely on sources like ADB for the basics—birth, death, promotions, campaigns, etc.—and on other sources for much of the other kinds of material: what units, etc. The great thing about ADB is its no nonsense character. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes napoleon-online.de a WP:RS? The Ministry (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source. Napoleon online is in part a collection of biographical material compiled from original sources (at least the part I used here) and is the German-language partner-site to Napoleon Series. The latter is peer-reviewed, and Burnham keeps a tight rein on what goes on the site, and the sites he partners with (when possible). Sometimes the writing isn't stellar —he often offers students the opportunity to publish on the site as well as people whose native language is not English—but the content is reliable. It is also a good location to find transcriptions of original documents. I talked with him (Burnham) about the policies at a conference once (we were both presenting papers), and he explained that he does require a peer review of the articles, from other contributors, usually. Some of the articles have been part of the Napoleon period writers contest. His contributors vary widely: John Gill, Ian Castle, among others. Ebert writes in German, and is compiling a substantial core of biographies on the Austrian generals. I've double-checked his material, and find it to be accurate and reliable. So, based on my evaluation of the site, my checking of his information, and the relationship with another site I trust (and that is trusted by many), I consider it reliable. I refer my students to it if they are looking for something on a topic covered there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support I was the user that passed this article for GA, and it has significantly improved and expanded since then. I enjoyed reading it, but there were too many problems to support at this stage, although I would be happy to do so once improvements have been made. The problems largely fall into two categories 1) widespread prose errors, both in terms of grammar and typos and 2) Too much context in some places and not enough in others. In all, a very nice article, but not quite there yet.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big improvements, but still a few minor points below to address. Don't worry about expanding or cutting context at this stage, but there are still some prose issues to deal with. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do you think it needs cutting? The A-class reviewer wanted it expanded. Prose issues should be addressed now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I think this article could do with cutting down, but that is only a matter of opinion and not something I consider actionable in this FAC. Otherwise it is a very good article that I am now happy to support. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The son of a Bohemian noble, he joined the cavalry as a teenager" - is something of a non sequiter - can you make it flow better with the sentances around it? fixed
  • "In the early years of the French Revolutionary Wars, he distinguished" - say "Klenau" instead of "he" the first time you reference him in a paragraph. done.
  • "main Austrian force after its defeat at Wagram" - repetition of Wagram changed
  • "at Aspern-Esslingen and and its defeat at Wagram" - too many "and"s
  • "on the first day of battle. After the battle" - repetition of battle I added the battle name again.
  • The word "he" is repeated too often in the final paragraph of the lead, try to find ways to avoid using it as much. fixed
  • I too am slightly uncomfortable about the "In his early military career Klenau demonstrated" section not being directly attributed, but I accept your response above and don't think any additional work is needed on this at this time. When someone writes a bio of him...
  • "looked upon the revolution in France" - link to the French Revolution and give a date. I think that there is too much detail here on the causes of the war given that this is a biography of someone who was not involved at all at this stage, although again, I don't see it as a barrier to FAC, just something to think about. initially it didn't have this much, when you saw it at GA, but one of the A-class reviewers wanted more context.
  • I think you have the wrong Battle of Wissembourg linked. Wissembourg lines, 12-13 October 1793? That isn't the right one?
  • The article we are direct to says that the battle was in December.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AH, first battle of Wissembourg! Got it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and mowed down Dufour's infantry" - mowed down is not an encyclopedic term, find a different way to say it. generally it is described that way. I changed to cut.
  • Out of curiosity, do you think that the Battle of Zemon, the Battle of Handschuhsheim, the Siege of Ferrara, the Battle of Büsingen deserve their own articles? Certain Handschuhsheim should. The others? Not so sure.
  • "Bonaparte's victory there" - name and link the battle it's in the same sentence, but I repeated it.
  • Town was linked, but the battle wasn't. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "among others—achieved several victories" - is in the wrong tense "among others— had achieved several victories" fixed and reworded.
  • "Peace and the Congress of Rastatt" - Klenau isn't mentioned once in this whole section. I understand the need to provide context, but I'm concerned that this section (and others like it) go too far off topic. see my comment above. I'll try to pare it down, but given the previous review....
  • "Archduke Charles of Austria in the late 18th and early 19th centuries" - this doesn't make sense, do you mean "Charles, Archduke of Austria in the late 18th and early 19th centuries"? got it.
  • "on 24 May 1799, Klenau captured the fortress at Ferrara, the lynch-pin in the French Po River defenses" - you have already described the capture of the fortress, and stated that is was the lynchpin. This repetition needs to be removed.done I think.
  • "a strategically key point in the region" - you mean "a key strategic point in the region"
  • "Despite the imperial losses" - Imperial is a proper noun in this context and should always be capitalised. done
  • There is one in the 1799 section and one in the Eagle caption still to do.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
should be all now. Did you mean imperial city of Pfullendorf?
  • "This not establish a lasting peace on the continent" - this is not clear, what do you mean?
  • Most of the battles mentioned during the Ulm Campaign have their own articles that should be linked to. done
  • Wertingen needs linking I think, otherwise good.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Wertingen is linked. At the first, near the Bavarian town of Wertingen, 40 kilometers (25 mi) northwest of Augsburg, on 8 October, Murat's Cavalry Corps and grenadiers of Lannes' V Corps surprised an Austrian force half their size.
  • "The campaign started badly at the Battle of Eckmühl" -badly for who? for Klenau
  • "16 mounted squadrons, which he led Archduke Charles lost the advantage in the battle;" - looks like something is missing here? A period?
  • This article makes it sound like Klenau won the battle of Aspern-Essling almost single handed. Can you place his participation in a wider context? widened'
  • It's still not clear that any other Austrians were engaged other than Klenau's force - how important was his contribution to the overall battle?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
added more.
  • "Saxon campaign 1813" - Its a little odd, but having given extensive and not always relevant context to every campaign up to this point, the narrative suddenly leaps ahead four years with no context at all - please comment on events between 1809 and 1813, both in Europe and regarding Klenau personally. did some, but expanded at 1812
  • "the Schwedenschanze, of the Swedish Redoubt," - what was the "Swedish redoubt" Schwedenschanz means Swedish defensive position, or the Swedish redoubt. Built by the Swedes in the 30 Years War.
  • I think the "of" should be an "or" in that sentance (I think that is what is confusing me).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will finish the rest tomorrow Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "under the command of Prince of Schwarzenberg" - "under the command of the Prince of Schwarzenberg" fixed.
  • Again we suddenly leap ahead after the first day of Leipzig - what did Klenau do on the other days? fixed
  • Can we have some more detail on what he did during the 1814 campaign? some
  • "In preliminary skirmishing preliminary to the Battle of Leipzig, in the two days leading up to the battle," - give a dateexpanded Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - “Johann von Klenau, also called Johann Josef Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz,” should it really be “also called”, isn't the long one just his full name? The Ministry (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources usually refer to him as Johann von Klenau. Sometimes the longer name is used. Count of Klenau and Baron of Janowitz.

Support - Read the article & went through it mostly for the "French side of the story", i.e. linking to the right individuals, editing French words etc., I am leaving the technical discussion to the pros as I see that the small problems are being resolved the instant they are brought out. Un grand merci to Auntie Ruth for this new interesting article. Frania W. (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images:
  • A question about the lead image, File:Johann Graf von Klenau Freiherr von Janowitz.jpg. It's on the Commons and seems old enough, so it should be okay, but I notice the author is unknown, and there is no first publication date. Is there anything that tells us its age, even roughly? I'm unsure about whether we can assume this particular image was made in his lifetime.
It's at least pre 1819. It is the type of picture usually contained in a miniature, and given the medals he is wearing, it was probably done after he received his Commanders' Cross.
Personally, I agree with you, but I've been challenged myself in the past for not providing an author or a publication date that shows the image really is that old, and isn't something that was created more recently and made to look that age. I'm new to image reviews and therefore unsure how strict we're meant to be, so I'll have to leave this one to the delegates, but if you can track down more information about it, it would clear up the uncertainty. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image has been released by Luca Giarelli, but we don't say who that is. If it's a Wikipedian, we should link to the user page. I checked the English WP and she's not here.
It says right on the page who she is, so I'll link it to her using this: Photo by Luca Giarelli / CC-BY-SA 3.0 Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I'm not being obtuse, but how do we know this map was created before 1923? The source doesn't say anything about it that I can see.
  • this looks like an image from the Baedecker guidebooks. Not entirely sure. I can replace it with an image of the castle itself, but this little map explains better how Klenau could take the city, but not the castle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, something showing a publication date or source would establish its age. Without that, strictly speaking it shouldn't be used. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this image was taken and released by Peter Stein, but the image page doesn't say who that is. There's no user on this WP with that user name.
He is a photographer living in the Bodenseeraum (in Radolfzell). I added his website to the description. I added Photo by Peter Stein / CC-BY-SA 3.0 to the caption. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one needs a link on the image page to say which website it came from. It says artnet, but we need a link to the page, or some more precise citation.

The above is a check on all the images down to, but not including, the section called "Napoleonic Wars". The images in those sections not listed above are fine. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To add, File:Ulm capitulation.jpg does not list the date of creation of this work. We need this in order to find out if it is really PD or not. The rest of the images not checked by Slim I did check and they look OK to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles Thévenin is the painter of the above, and he died in 1838, so that's fine, but it would be good to add his dates to the image page.
  • I added his dates.
  • I've tagged the painting with the pd-old thingie. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another concern: File:Napoleon.Dresden.jpg is a 19th-century painting, and there's no problem using it, but the person who took the photograph has tagged it as his/her own work and cc-by. Should it not be the painting that's tagged, rather than the photograph of the painting? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the painting's age that matters. The photographer didn't add anything creative, so in addition to the release by the photographer there should be an appropriate tag for the painting. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify what I wrote there, a release from the photographer isn't needed at all unless there was creative input, but given that we have one, it would make sense not to remove it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged the painting with the pd-old thingie. Left the photographer's release. We okay now Slim? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks. The only remaining issues are the lack of authors or known publication dates showing they're PD by virtue of age for File:Johann Graf von Klenau Freiherr von Janowitz.jpg and File:Ferrara Lombardy town and fortress.jpg. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you look at this and see if it suits our needs better? It is not as good a map (not as clearly marking of the fort), but perhaps...? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it does, and if you have more information about it, it would remove the dating problem. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I also found the documentation on the original. At least I think it is. Andrea Bolzoni. I added it to the commons file. I'd rather keep the older one, that's in there now. I've found the Klenau portrait in a modern book and it appears to be in public domain, since they do not credit it to a museum, or another book. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain here, but is there a page number for the Bolzoni book? I can't get that doi to work, by the way. It says not found. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no page number, it was in the executive summary of the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could email your source and ask where he got it from. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, but I added a source on the map, and it seems that should be sufficient.
I heard back from him: he found it on a website with PD images. He doesn't remember which one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Klenau image. I found a copy of it in Hollins, Austrian Commanders of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815, Osprey, p. 22. He gives no attribution for Klenau's picture, or anyone else's. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a paper copy of the book? If so, there should be an acknowledgments section somewhere for images. I just tried to look on Google books, but it's only letting me see a few pages. One of them (p 2) thanks the Austrian National Library Bildarchiv, so that's probably where this image comes from. You could email them, or email the author, David Hollins, via the publisher: info at ospreydirect.co.uk. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Austrian National Library's website [43] Their general email address is generaldirektion at onb.ac.at Other addresses are here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do have a paper copy, and Hollins has credited Ian Castle with providing the picture, so I've written to him about it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we're taking this too far. It is an old picture of a man who died in 1819, and who probably posed for the picture himself. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with you, but the image rules on WP say that we must know both the source of an image (where the Wikipedian got it from), and its provenance (who owns the copyright; have they licensed the image; or if copyright has expired or was never appropriate, name and dates of author and/or date of publication, so we know how old it is. I believe all you have to do with this image, and that of the map, is show that they were published before 1923. You don't necessarily need the names of the authors or first dates of publication. This is one of my first image reviews, so I really don't know how strict the delegates are. I'll look around to see what others are doing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article here about reviewing images for FAC. If you look under "policy-mandated elements," it says images at FAC require: an image summary, which you have; a source, which you have; and a copyright tag along with sufficient information to determine that the tag is the right one. That's what you're lacking for the lead image and the map. See point 3 under "policy-mandated elements." I'm sorry, I know it seems strict and is frustrating, but there's a real risk that these images will be challenged in future by someone else, so it's worth getting it sorted out. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more source I can ask. We'll see what he says. He uses it in his page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) SlimVirgin is correct. Per WP:IUP#Requirements, sources for the image to help verification of title, author, and date(s) should be provided. Also remember that creation does not equal publication, and that under US laws, centuries-old photos/paintings might be still be copyrighted if published at the "wrong" time (see WP:Public domain#Artworks). Images of paintings should either have the location of their gallery stated, or the site from where the digital image is gotten (remember to point to the page where the image is displayed, and not to the image themselves). Publication data should be stated. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took the portrait out and substituted a picture (Handschuhsheim charge) in its stead. When I finally get a lead on where that portrait came from I may switch it back. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the best solution for now. I hope you get it sorted so you can use the image you want. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about fair use? (Untill we know if it is PD or not). The Ministry (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So all the images are okay now? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source showing that Andrea Bolzoni was the author of File:Ferrara Lombardy town and fortress.jpg or, more importantly, when it was published? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
swapped for a different pc Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review completed. That's all the images in order as far as I can tell. Well done for sorting them out, AR. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All of my concerns have been addressed. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Binksternet. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence "After their defeat at Wagram, the Austrians withdrew into Moravia, leaving the French in control of that part of the Danube valley; Wagram was the largest European land-battle to-date, engaging 262 battalions and 202 squadrons—153,000 men—for France and her allies, and 160 battalions and 150 squadrons—135,000 men—on the Austrian side" has how many em dashes in it? I count four, but two are the limit suggested by the guideline at WP:DASH. The same guideline suggests two per paragraph as a good limit, but your paragraph beginning "Although the Coalition forces" contains four em dashes.
Two are the limit suggested, but in this case, for parallel structure, I used them.
Okay. Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the deal with all those non-breaking spaces? They are not all necessary.
I have been told at previous FA reviews that they are. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where in Wikipedia:MOS#Non-breaking_spaces or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Non-breaking_spaces does it specify that a date needs a non-breaking space between the day and the month? Or between "1813" and "Battle of Dresden"? Or between "2008" and "version"? The list goes on and on. Using such non-breaking spaces when not specified in MOS sets a worrisome precedent. None in the article can be said to be useful except for the ones preceding the word "million" or the word "percent". Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At your phrase "the position seemed unsustainable", could you use the word "untenable" instead?
Sure. Done.
    • In one reference by Vann, you have two page ranges with one a subset of the other: pp. 291–310, pp. 297–298. Same with Sked: pp. 175–193, p. 176; and Leggiere: pp. 39–84, p. 64. I suggest deleting the subset pages since they are included in the larger range.
The general page ranges are for the article, the single page is the page cited.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You can easily drop the article page range and just go with the page(s) specifically cited. Down in the bibliography section, you already have the article page range defined, so they are not needed twice. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the point of that. I'm old fashioned, and a citation when it first appears should be complete. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your en dashes include a combination of HTML coded ones and single characters. I suggest converting the HTML ones to characters for consistency. The reader will not see the change but an editor who uses this article as an example of FA style will.
That just means the auto-ed hasn't gone through it again, since someone did some editing. Auto ed has now gone through, and all are converted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One instance of the words "to-date" has a hyphen linking them. Is this purposeful?
It wasn't for me, but I'll check it.
    • I see a mix of British and American spellings. The convert template specifies U.S. but the hyphens in east-south-east and counter-attack are British. The spelling of "storey" is British.
The spelling of "storey" is also American. East-south-east are also American, as is counter-attack. As far as I know. I live in the US, and use them/read them all the time. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Storey" is a variant on the primary American spelling of "story", per Merriam-Webster online. "Southeast" is the only spelling of "south-east" for American usage, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Directions and regions. "East-southeast" is the American form of "east-south-east", per Merriam-Webster. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Southeast is spelled with one word when it is a place (such as Southeast United States). Locations of the compass east–south–east are not a single word, but indicative of a range, and therefore, as I understand the guidelines, should be hyphenated. So perhaps the MOS has a contradiction in it.
In any dictionary I've read storey is the proper way to spell the word for horizontal levels in a house, not "story", which is a tale told at the fireside. I understand that it may be "story" in the United States but it is not necessarily that way in the United States. This may be a generational issue, also.
'Kay. Binksternet (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once more in WP:DASH, the guideline talks about mixing prepositions with dashes when discussing a date range. The use of "from 1778 to 1779" is fine, but "from 1778–1779" is not, as it mixes the two. Also: "between 1801–1805". These could be fixed by deleting the word, or changing the en dash to a word. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am doing a close proofread and copyedit; I am 80% through. Writing is generally excellent, as usual.
  • There seems to be some confusion around the battle of Aspern and Essling though:
    • In Johann_von_Klenau#Aspern_and_Essling, Klenau takes the villages against Masséna, in May.
    • In early July, in the Johann_von_Klenau#Wagram section, Klenau takes the same villages again from Masséna (even though nothing we say implies that Austria lost them in the meantime), only to then lose them to Masséna.
that would be yes. A couple of nights in both battles, when the fighting stopped for the night, the French and Austrians were within pistol shot from one another. One source I read said that they could smell each other's cigars and cooking. Given the standards of 19th century hygiene, they could probably smell each other, too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:)) cracking me up. --JN466 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both times we say he got his orders late but made up the time.
  • Are we somehow telling the same story twice? Or did France retake Aspern and Essling between May and July, and Klenau really did get his orders late on both occasions? --JN466 23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aspern-Essling and Wagram were fought on the same territory—within sight of the Vienna ramparts—a few weeks apart. The same armies were there, plus more French brought up in the meantime (from Italy). Austrians didn't get additional men because Archduke John dawdled along the way (didn't understand the urgency). And in the meantime, the Austrians didn't learn to do staff work any better. The Austrian command structure was very cumbersome, so it often took a long time for orders to be written and delivered, unless Charles gave instructions himself directly to a commander, which in this situation did not happen. I wondered too if Klenau got his orders late on both battles; my sources re Aspern refer to late orders and my sources re Wagram refer to late orders. So I wrote about late orders. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I am still confused (and so, I am sure, will readers be) how Klenau could take Aspern and Essling from the French in July, when he had already taken them from the French in May, and there was a lull in fighting between May and July. Perhaps we should dig for some sources and close that gap. I am sure we'll get this fixed though and am happy to support. --JN466 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see if this clarifies it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this sorts it, thanks. :) --JN466 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Supports from Brianboulton, Jackyd, Ed, Frania W, JN. Binksternet has struck issues. Slim Virgin did image review. (her first, YAY, throws confetti). Ealdgyth -did sources. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet struck all my comments. I would not like to see the non-breaking space overuse issue remain in place and thus reinforce continued non-MOS requirements pushed down the throats of FAC nominators. I can't find one non-breaking space that must stay in this article. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked: yikes ! We do *Not* need nbsps on dates. They should be removed, but I'm not going to hold up promotion over that. There was once a long discussion on the MOS talk pages, and we put to rest the idea of NBSPs on dates-- they are not needed, and really clutter the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish... I have removed all of the non-breaking spaces, including the ones in front of the words "million" and "percent", because there was no confusion with monetary symbols or the percent sign. I now fully support this FAC. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: is that infobox really only 300px? It is seriously huge on my browser, and really jamming the text into only a few lines. I don't know how/where to check this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was set to be 1.75 times as wide as your personal choice for thumbnail width. What is your setting? Mine is still at 180px, wiki default, and the resulting image measured out to about 320 pixels wide. Your width is probably gigantic because you like bigger thumbs. ^_^
I changed the image to be hard coded 300px. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this Binksternet. And for fixing the dates. I have crossed this off my Wikiwoops list...things I didn't do right initially and was told I must do. Glad to have it clarified. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [44].

Hurricane Rick (2009) edit

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all FA criteria. In addition to being an amazingly powerful storm, the article is necessary in the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes featured topic. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: about citations, just a few polish: is "ciudadania-express" really capitalised that way? "Notimex." Italics required! "La Prensa." Italics required! Fifelfoo (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the three references. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done. Please add alt text to the lead image (in the infobox). Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a typo in the infobox template that prevented the alt text from displaying; I fixed that. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness. Lots of good info, nothing missing as far as I can tell. Note that I've not read the article in detail however. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Article looks good and seems to meet the FAC Criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This article is awesome and deserves to be Featured. Why not make it official? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
  • Note, I'm going to go off on a rant if I have to remind hurricane editors again to join Category X with an WP:NBSP :) Please fix throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to have everything a hurricane article should have. Well written and cited. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [45].

Chorioactis edit

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


My latest FAC submission features a rare fungus, found only in Texas and Japan, that hisses and blows smoke (sort of). It is as comprehensive as I can make it without learning Japanese (although I'd like to thank the Japan wikiproject for some help with translation). Thanks for reading. Disclosure: I'm in the WikiCup Sasata (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

This one seems to have changed a lot since last time I read it... Different pictures, for a start :) Great work with the pictures- the maps are a great addition, and the new lead picture is excellent.

  • Category:Monotypic fungi genera (added)
  • "splits open in a star-like fashion" It's not the splitting that is starlike, but the shape, surely? (fixed - this was my poor translation of the original jargon phrase "stellate dehiscence")
  • "called kirinomitake (キリノミタケ) after its resemblance to the seed pods of the Empress tree." Doesn't mean much to me... Is the Empress tree known as kirino in Japanese, or something? (removed the detail from the lead, but explained the kiri reference in the text and figure caption)
  • "clarified our understanding" Avoid self references? (removed "our understanding of")
  • "by Heald and Wolf (1910)[5] and Seaver (1928, 1942)," Other mycologists are given their full names.# (all full names given now, with redlinks; will make articles for these guys soon, as redlinks bug me. Oddly, they're all named Fred.)
  • "tribe Sarcosomateae" A link would be good, or, if not, a link to our articles on tribes. (linked tribe)
  • "C. geaster is the only member of the monotypic genus Chorioactis.[17]" Not certain this fits- the issue has already been discussed. I admit that a nice concluding line about the status of the species would be good, but the focus of the sentence is the species, not the genus, despite the fact the title of the article suggests it is about the genus. (you're right, it just repeats what's already been said - now removed)
  • "American mycologist Seaver commented" Seaver has already been introduced, and, again, I don't really like the way we refer to him only by surname. (fixed)
  • "In 1997, Texan state Senator Chris Harris filed a bill to make C. geaster the official state fungus of Texas;[19] the bill passed the Senate but did not succeed in the House.[20]" Do we have an article on state fungi? If not, a link to the article about symbols of Texas may fit... (linked to the latter. A list article on the former would be interesting, will dig around and see how many states have one)
  • "In Japan the mushroom is called kirinomitake (キリノミタケ), because the immature, unopened fruit body bears some resemblance to the seed pods of the Empress tree (Paulownia tomentosa).[21]" Again, I'm not seeing this. It's like saying "They named their daughter Evelyn, after Dolly Parton". (fixed per above)
  • "fruit body (technically an apothecium)," Implies that an apothecium is not a fruiting body- is this the case? (I just removed the parenthetical information, as it's just introducing jargon that's not used again in the article)
  • "the characteristic shape of the unopened fruit body, as well as the smoky spore release give the fungus its common name "Devil's cigar"" Sort of contradicts what has already been said- before, the tone of the article was very "who knows why it's called that?" but now there seems to be some certainty. Perhaps some counter-quotes from different mycologists would be interesting? (I've added a ref that correlates the fungus appearance and behavior with the common name with certainty. Didn't mean to imply doubt about the name origin with the Seaver quote, but was rather trying to add some flavor to the text. Will think about how to rejig the prose introducing the quote.)
  • "Dehiscence is accompanied by a hissing sound, an auditory phenomenon known to occur in about fifteen other fungal species." That's awesome. Does it have a name? I'd love to see an article on that... (No technical name that I'm aware of, but I agree a list article about fungi that make sounds would be cool... will look into it.)
  • "filamentous" link? (wikt'd)
  • "other species in the genus Kumanasamuha." Why "other"? It's not technically a member of the genus itself... (removed "other")
  • "dead oak trees." The linked article is about oak trees, not dead ones specifically. (improved pipe)
  • "between October to April," October AND April, surely? (ya)

I think this article's fantastic. There were several extremely interesting sections- the odd distribution, the details of dehiscence, the state fungus bill, the anamorph form... It's very well written, comprehensive and compelling. It's also very well illustrated and researched. A great read. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your helpful comments. I particularly like how this article started out as a one shot contribution by an anon fungus fan. I hope (s)he comes back sometime and sees how their contribution has grown :) Sasata (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Formatting on refs looks very nice. All OK. • Ling.Nut 03:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to recolour one of the maps so they have the same colour scheme (not a big deal, but looks better)
I'll see what I can do.. there must be some easy way to change colors, I just need to figure out how. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this and this, colored according to WikiProject Maps Conventions? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I did not know there were map conventions. Thanks for doing that, Fvasconcellos. I probably would have spent an hour figuring out how to do it, then would have gotten the colors wrong :) Sasata (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For completeness, can you add the source of the mapped data to the two image files for the maps?
Done. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (Another week, another fungus... of course, its so cold here I don't have any fungi growing in my barn, the manure pile is frozen solid!) -
  • You are so lucky to have easy access to horse manure... I have to buy it by the bag, or drive an hour to get it for "free". Sasata (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL.. I think that's a first. Most folks do not consider the fact that my horses produce manure "lucky" (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 5 (Seaver 1928) needs a page number (done)
  • Current ref 29 (Rare ...) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source? (Anything where the website's domain name is pinktenticle.com is going to have some issues with reliability without something else offsetting that!) (I ditched this source as I found the conference abstract which this source was citing.)
  • Current ref 32 (Mims..) needs a publisher (done - this source is a reprint of his science column that appeared in the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise)
  • Current ref 33 (Forest.mims) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source? (I removed this one, it was extraneous)
  • Current ref 34 (Jones..) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source? (I have replaced this with something more reliable, a conference abstract that supports the statement.)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Ealdgyth. Sasata (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support (moral or otherwise) as wikiproject fungi member. I am reading through now. I did wonder about expanding Kyushu to "The Japanese Island of Kyushu" in the lead but hadn't realised it was the third largest island (never known much about Japanese geography..). Anyway. Will jot any queries below. I am reduced to minor non-deal-breaker quibbles. Article looks great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the distribution section, I wonder if it is worth noting the distribution in Texas is disjunct (due to suitable habitat?).
I added the sentence "Travis and Guadalupe counties are in central Texas, while the remainder are clustered together in the northeastern part of the state.", but I don't really know anything about their habitats (nor do the sources mention) so I left out any speculation. Thanks for your support. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great treatment of a fascinating topic. Appears to meet all FAC criteria. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: accessdates are not required for hardprint journals or when PMIDs are given; given that they're there, no need to remove them, but they do add unnecessary clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason I thought they were needed for all external web links. I will recalibrate my thinking for future articles. Sasata (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [46].

Muhammad al-Durrah incident edit

Nominator(s): SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination blurb edit

This is a partial self-nom. The 10th anniversary of this incident is coming up on September 30 this year, which is why I'm nominating it for FA status. Several editors have worked on it over the years, both on the article itself and by offering guidance on the talk page. A full list of editors is here, and talk-page contributors are here. It was largely rewritten in October this year, though earlier contributions helped to shape the rewrite. The top editors from 2009 are ChrisO, George, Jaakobou, and myself. Previous key editors were Jayjg, Tundrabuggy, and Liftarn. It is 41 kB (6502 words) of readable prose; 110 kB overall.

What happened to 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah is a highly contentious issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was filmed by France 2 on September 30, 2000 apparently being shot and killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a gun battle with Palestinian security forces. Multiple, conflicting, and sometimes overlapping narratives have developed about the incident over the years. The basic positions are as follows, with examples of who holds the view—the people cited are either involved, or are journalists who've written about the issue in depth:

  1. He was shot and killed by the IDF. Held by Charles Enderlin and Talal Abu Rahma of France 2; most of the media that first responded; the IDF initially. [47]
  2. He was shot and killed, probably or definitely by Palestinian gunfire. Held by e.g. General Yom Tov Samia of the IDF following a controversial November 2000 IDF investigation; [48] Daniel Leconte, former France 2 correspondent. [49]
  3. He was shot and killed, but we don't know who fired the shots. Held by e.g. Arlette Chabot, news director of France 2, [50] and Israeli historian Tom Segev. [51]
  4. He was shot and killed, and we don't know by whom, but not by the IDF soldiers known to have been there. Held by e.g. James Fallows of The Atlantic. [52]
  5. A boy did die that day in that area, but he arrived at the hospital (10 am) before al-Muhammad was shot (between noon and 3 pm), and the boy shown during the funeral was not al-Durrah. Muhammad may be alive or dead; there is no firm evidence either way. A small minority position, held by German journalist Esther Schapira, who has produced two documentaries about the incident. [53]
  6. There is no reason to suppose he was either shot or killed; the whole thing was a hoax. A very small minority position, the so-called "maximalist narrative." Held by e.g. Israeli physicist Nahum Shahaf who was involved in the October 2000 IDF investigation; Richard Landes, an American academic; Philippe Karsenty, a French media commentator; Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli govt press office; Luc Rosenzweig, a retired managing editor of Le Monde; Jean-Claude Schlinger, a French ballistics expert hired by Karsenty. [54] There is also a belief, held by at least one member of the October 2000 IDF inquiry, that the incident was staged, but that the boy's death was real and was part of the pretence.

The positions aren't as clear-cut as the above and overlap considerably. It has been difficult to steer a course through them, giving each view the attention reliable sources give it, but I think we've achieved a reasonable balance. The article covers all the main views comprehensively, without going into neurotic detail (I hope).

There are quite a few fair-use images in the article, as we had to use the original France 2 footage of the shooting. This is copyrighted, but although not released under a free licence, the network has allowed the images to be reproduced all over the world without charge, so there's no problem with our use of them. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter edit

Peter part 2 edit

The article is much improved. I am going to support but:

  • "Rosensweig" or "Rosenzweig"? Both spellings appear.
  • Lead 3rd para: Philippe Karsenty, a French media watchdog. Should people be described as watchdogs? How about "campaigner"?
  • Lead 4th para. amounted to a modern blood libel. I think "modern version of the blood libel" would be better.
  • French times again. I suggest that you translate these times trhoughout into GMT in the same way as you translate the Palestinian times. So that you say 8:00pm (6:00pm GMT).

--Peter cohen (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter. Your first three points are fixed here. Regarding times, I think I'm too tired to do this right now, and I don't want to make a mistake, so I'll leave it until after I've had a short break. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's done. [55] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You reconciled things the opposite way to what I expeced. But it is consistent now. So that's all my points dealt with. If the NPOV debate below results in more substantial updates, let me know and I'll check again.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt 1 edit

Material moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Muhammad al-Durrah incident/archive1#Wehwalt 1. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt 2 edit

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Muhammad al-Durrah incident/archive1#Wehwalt 2. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut edit

  • Comments
  • Spelling: Is it Ha'aretz or Haaretz; Canal Plus or Canal+.
  • I think the Wikisource link to Karsenty v. Enderlin-France2 is buried in the notes. Shouldn't it be elsewhere?
  • Sources in notes but not refs: Reuters, May 21, 2008; Schapira 2000a [but seems to be a typo];
  • Sources in refs but not notes: CNN (September 27, 2000); Lungen, Paul (2008); Patience, Martin (2007); Prasquier, Richard (2008) [though Prasquier is mentioned in the text but linked to Barnavi]; Psenny, Daniel (2004); Ravid, Barak (2007); Rohan, Brian (2008); St Petersburg Times (November 28, 2000)
  • MinorEasily-repaired POV concerns about WP:LEDE: Yes, I see the logic of the lede, and its valiant attempt to be NPOV. I would even suggest that a majority of folks would agree that the lede is NPOV. However, it seems that the Palestinian POV is always placed in sequence before the Israeli one. Perhaps this reflects the chronological path of the development of conventional wisdom (as outlined above). However, and probably as a result, the initial paragraphs kinda lead the reader along a garden path, first painting an impression that the event was as the Palestinians would have it, then to some degree taking back the first impression with later statements. I would like to see this addressed by rewriting the first and/or second sentence of the lede to address the issue of shifting and POV-laden interpretations. I suppose this could involve WP:OR concerns if it is stated as explicitly as I just did, unless there are sources that address the shift in opinions... Even if that is the case, I still think that the uncertainty surrounding the event's interpretation should be right up there in sentence 1. I would also like the lede to contain some mention of what would seem to be the strongest piece of evidence in each camp's favor. Essentially, I'm asking you to abandon your current organizational structure in favor of one explicitly designed to address POV concerns.
  • • Ling.Nut 13:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ling.Nut, I rewrote the first three paragraphs of the lead to make it clearer (I hope) how views had shifted, and what the different positions are. See here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the center of the controversy, yet for the most part silent". I got the Pearson story, and didn't see anything resembling this text. Was Pearson your source? • Ling.Nut 09:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean "for the most part silent"? I don't recall that was in Pearson. It is a general summary of the articles that discuss how he hasn't said much about it since shortly after it happened. I can remove it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I mean. I don't see any mention at all of his [the father, you mean?} or anyone's reticence. Moreover — our text says "A psychologist who treated the six remaining children"; the Pearson text says "Mohammed Makhamier, who is involved in counselling the seven remaining Durra children". Oh dear. First, no identification of Makhamier as a psychologist, and second a (minor) miscount.
  • "For the most part silent" is removed. [59] Will change six to seven. I did name Mohammed Makhamier in an earlier version, but removed it as too much detail. Pearson does not use "psychologist," but I've seen Makhamier described as that elsewhere. I can use therapist if you prefer. Here is the relevant part of the text:

"Death of Mohammed al-Durra haunts Palestinian children by Bryan Pearson, 6 November 2000, Agence France-Presse

GAZA CITY, Nov 6 (AFP) - A sister of Mohammed al-Durra, the young Palestinian boy whose widely televised death by Israeli gunfire in late September has become a symbol of the intifada, believes a ghost follows her everywhere, waiting to kill her.

Two of his brothers wet their beds at night and have frequent nightmares, while a third refuses to believe Mohammed is dead.

These symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are not confined to the Durra children, according to therapists counselling young Palestinians struggling to come to terms with the killings and violence currently characterising life in the Gaza Strip and West Bank ...

The repeated broadcasting of Mohammed's death is having a particularly devastating effect, she [Rawya Hamam, a therapist from the Gaza Community Mental Health Association] said.

The footage shows 11-year-old Mohammed cowering in terror next to his father, who is signalling for help from behind the small concrete wall where they are trapped; then being struck by bullets; and finally lying slumped across his wounded father's lap.

The boy was killed just days after the September 28 start of the intifada when he and his father were caught at the centre of a fierce firefight between Israelis and Palestinians near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, just outside Gaza City.

Hamam said children have taken to re-enacting the scene on school playgrounds, one child taking the part of the father, the other of Mohammed ...

Mohammed Makhamier, who is involved in counselling the seven remaining Durra children, said the family has been especially traumatised, not only because of Mohammed's death but also due to the intense media attention on them and because of the repeated screening of the incident on television.

Nora, 6, the one who sees the ghost, is afraid to sleep at night because of recurring nightmares. The children, he says, have become more isolated and withdrawn and no longer want to go to school.

While most of the children believe their brother is now "a bird in Paradise," Adam, 7, still believes Mohammed, "who used to protect me from the bullies at school," will come walking home one of these days ..."

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your very first link is to a YouTube video that no longer exists. In its absence, can you justify the words "slumps forward" in the lede? I don't remember that description in Schwartz, but my memory is poor....no, I just checked, and Scwartz doesn't mention any slumping motion. Moreover, wouldn't a description of a YouTube video be WP:OR? Not that it matters.. you have to get rid of the cite anyhow, since the video is gone... • Ling.Nut 10:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find another link. That the boy slumped forward is not disputed by anyone. What is disputed is what caused him to slump over. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw Wehwalt's "Arab street" concerns. This sentence is obviously a rephrasing of the info about "brutality" taken from Patience, as given in the lede. It may or may be an accurate rephrasing, but that would seem to be its source.• Ling.Nut 13:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still finding "after which the boy slumps forward" completely unacceptable. I saw the video (WP:OR, but wait). There's no slumping motion. There's dust and out-of-focus jiggling, and then a boy in his father's lap. Schwartz didn't mention slumping, IIRC. One editorial source uses past tense and says "slumped in his father's lap", but "slumped"is poetic license here, and Wikipedia is not in the business of disseminating poetic license. Try Schwartz's text instead. • Ling.Nut 02:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, is the concern that reliable sources don't say the boy slumped over, or that editors don't see the boy slumping over in the video? The latter of these sounds like original research to me, while the former can be readily supported with sources:
  • William Orme, New York Times, "A Young Symbol of Mideast Violence", October 2, 2000 - "...the enduring image of the violence was a terrified Muhammad al-Durrah trapped by Israeli gunfire and then slumping lifeless into his father's lap."
  • Suzanne Goldberg, The Guardian, "Making of a martyr", October 3, 2000 - "That is what marks the spot where a terrified 12-year-old boy spent his final moments, cowering in his father's arms, before he was hit by a final shot to the stomach, and slumped over, dead."
  • Amy Waldman, New York Times, "Times Square Marchers Protest Killing of Palestinians", October 7, 2000 - "Several [protesters] said they would not forget the image of Muhammad slumped in his father's arms, an image shown frequently on television and in the nation's newspapers this week."
  • Lynne Duke, Washington Post, "Half a World From Gaza, a Crisis Still Hits Home", October 16, 2000 - "...Muhammad al-Durrah, cowering for cover in his father's lap, then slumping over lifelessly from a fatal bullet wound..."
  • Deborah Sontang, New York Times, "Whose Holy Land?: The victims; Israel in Shock as It Buries Mob's Victim", October 14, 2000 - "Muhammad was the 12-year-old shot dead by Israeli troops in a gun battle in Gaza, caught on film by a French cameraman, as the boy cowered behind his father and then slumped dead in his lap."
  • William Orme, New York Times, "Israeli Army Says Palestinians May Have Shot Gaza Boy", November 28, 2000 - "Doctors in Gaza who examined the boy said that he had been shot through the upper abdomen and that the back wound his father had seen as the boy slumped over was an exit injury."
  • Henri Astier, BBC News, "Gaza media battle in French court", November 13, 2007, "When Muhammad slumps to the ground, the reporter's script says the boy is dead and the father wounded."
If reliable sources described it as a "slumping" motion, why then shouldn't we also? ← George talk 04:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are repeating a meme; the grammar is ambiguous in most cases as to whether the boy is seen slumping. the other cases are secondhend meme stuff again. • Ling.Nut 09:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true"? Am I missing some nuance in what you object to? Do you just want it to say "after which the boy is seen slumped forward" instead of "after which the boy slumps forward"? I don't particularly distinguish between the two, so either is fine with me. ← George talk 09:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ling.Nut, I understand your concerns, but here's the problem. We could change that sentence to something like: "The dramatic footage ... shows ... a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is reported to have slumped forward and his father appears injured," or, "The dramatic footage ... shows ... a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen lying across his father's legs, and the father appears injured."
The problem with both of those is that they signal too clearly that we're distancing ourselves. It would be like describing the crucial moment of the Kennedy assassination in the lead, as " The footage shows a burst of what was reported as gunfire, during which Mrs. Kennedy reportedly cradled her husband then appeared to leap to the back of the car." By writing like that, we immediately signal to the reader that we're distancing ourselves for some reason, even though the sources say Kennedy was shot, and that she was either trying to shield herself, or was trying to retrieve part of his head.
That Muhammad al-Durrah was not shot and killed is a very very small-minority thesis. I'm avoiding the use of "tiny minority" here, because it implies that it doesn't even belong in the article, though there are editors (good editors) who I think might argue that. Most of the reliable sources who have expressed concern about this footage argue simply that it did not show the boy had died, though Enderlin implied that it did, and that it did not show the Israelis shooting him, though Enderlin implied that it did. Out of that legitimate criticism of Enderlin's journalism, other commentators have developed a conspiracy theory that the boy wasn't really shot at all, and isn't really dead; or that some other boy was shot and killed, and that it's his funeral we see, and that the cameraman simply switched the names (or something like that -- there are a number of variations, some less coherent than others).
What you're suggesting is that, upfront in the lead with our very first description of this footage, we give credence to those very-small-minority views. That is what we're trying hard not to do. I've written this article so that those views are constantly hovering in the background, as it were (note the title -- it's not the "death of Muhammad al-Durrah," the normal title for this kind of story; note the lack of a date of death; note the lack of Template:Infobox person, which includes the date of death parameter) but without at the same time slanting the writing to the point where I'm saying right from the start, "Hey, look, there's something dodgy about this story." It has been a difficult balance to achieve, and I don't think we should take it further in either direction. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep repeating this "small minority" comment; I'd {{fact}} tag you if this were mainspace. My point is this: The quotes that George dragged up all look very suspiciously like quotes in which the article never mentions watching the end of the video. If that's true, then it also looks very suspiciously like the output of people slurping their morning coffee, sitting at their desks, regurgitating an Internet meme, and getting paid very serious mony for it (as "journalists"). The Schwartz quote explicitly references viewing the video repeatedly... so... here's the deal: very unfortunately, it's the week before Finals week here. I will be busy busy busy. Ideally, I would like to line up quotes from those who discuss repeatedly viewing the video and those who do not, and see whether text such as the following is doable: "although many journalists reported that the boy slumped after the gunfire, those who mentioned that they watched he video carefully reported only a cloud of dust, a boy lying in his father's lap, and then a brief motion from the boy raising his hands". Or something. You can make it read better. • Ling.Nut 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not comfortable trying to infer how much research journalists did or didn't do, based solely on whether they explicitly mentioned watching the video to the end. That's the whole reason Wikipedia relies on information published in reliable sources—we're trusting those sources for their editorial oversight and fact checking. Rejecting multiple articles published by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and the BBC based on our own inferences doesn't sit well with me. Furthermore, the Schwartz article doesn't says that the boy didn't slump over, or that reports of the boy slumping over were somehow inaccurate or exaggerated. So essentially, you're surmising that all the journalists published in reliable sources were wrong because of what they didn't mention, while arguing that we should reword this statement based on what another journalist, Schwartz, didn't mention? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! But best of luck with your finals. ← George talk 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need luck for the finals; I need a painkiller. I'm a professor, not a student. ;-) As for your long discussion of your discomfort etc.: I am only interested in accurately representing the sources. If they say they watched it and say their descriptions are a result, I am interested in including that. If they do not, I am interested in including that. If the grammar of their statements suggests or does not suggest visible movement, I am interested in that. I want their statements to be represented excruciatingly accurately. • Ling.Nut 04:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ling.Nut, I've changed that sentence to, "The dramatic footage, which lasts just over a minute, shows the pair holding onto each other, the boy crying and the father waving, then a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen lying across his father's legs, with his father appearing injured." [62] But I think we need to be very careful what we're doing here, because we're taking the lead too far in the direction of the small-minority theories. I'll write more later trying to show that they're small minorities, but it's a difficult thing to do, because most of the journalists who've written a lot about the al-Durrah case have simply ignored the alternative theories as not worth mentioning.

    Also, if we were to start trying to evaluate which journalists did and didn't watch the footage carefully, that would be the essence of original research. The footage is anyway not hard to watch carefully, because there isn't much to see. It is clear at the very end -- the final scene that France 2 cut -- that the boy moves slightly. It is undeniable. The question is how to interpret that, if at all. Was it just a twitching movement of someone dying, and therefore not journalistically relevant? That is the argument of the key players who have commented on it, though most journalists have simply ignored it. Or was it the boy peeking at the camera? That is the small-minority theory. Getting into who did or didn't watch the footage carefully would not take us anywhere, and even if it did, it would be OR. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Ling.Nut: some indications of what the majority view is edit

There are three key stages in the development of the story:

  1. The shooting and the reportage from 2000 to 2004 roughly. During these years, there is no question that the majority view in the media was that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) shot the boy and he died. I don't think anyone would dispute that this was the majority view at that time.
  2. January 2005-2008, when three senior French journalists, who had been given access to the raw footage in October 2004, wrote critically about it, two of them in Le Figaro. This resulted in stories less certain that the Israelis had shot him.
  3. May 2008 to the present, when Philippe Karsenty was cleared of libel by the Paris Court of Appeal for saying France 2 had broadcast a staged scene. The ruling simply meant that Karsenty was exercising his right to comment, by the way -- the court did not examine the substantive issue.

In October 2004, three senior French journalists viewed France 2's raw footage. Two them concluded (a) that the footage did not show the boy dying, contrary to the impression given by Charles Enderlin's original report, (b) that it did not show the IDF had shot him, contrary to Enderlin's report, and that therefore (c) Enderlin should not have concluded that the boy had been the "target of fire from the Israeli positions." However, these two journalists stressed that, when the shooting starts, it is real, and that the event was not staged. The third journalist who viewed the footage disagreed, and declared that the event had been staged, and that it was "almost the perfect media crime." See this section of the article for the details.

As a result of this debate, the news editor of France 2 declared in 2005 that no one can say for sure who fired the shots. That is almost certainly the current majority view, namely that the the incident was not staged, the boy was shot and did die, but no one knows who shot him. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I don't wan to break in to the middle, so if you are planning to add more comments, please feel free to drop this down to the end, but when you say that the court found that Karsanty "was exercising the right to comment", why should this article not include the information here that the court stated that Karsanty marshaled a "coherent mass of evidence" in defending against the network's claim? Doesn't this elevate it to far more than a fringe theory? After all, this is the only judicial opinion we have (leaving aside the overruled lower court) and it has ruled what I just said.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am planning to add more if I can find material that helps. What I'm looking for are mainstream news organizations since 2005 who have written about this to see what language they use regarding the death issue. Still looking.
Regarding "coherent mass of evidence," my understanding of the ruling is that K's claims were coherent and therefore he had to be allowed to express them. I do take your point about this being the only judicial opinion available. It has been difficult to know how to handle it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a considerable difference between "right of expression" and has a "considerable body of evidence". I can say Obama (or Bush if you prefer) is crazy, and nothing can be done to me because I am free to express my view. However, my opinion on his sanity won't be given much weight by a court, because I have no mental health training and haven't met the man. However, if a court finds I have a considerable mass of evidence that (insert here) is crazy, that is entirely another kettle of fish, and my belief should be given considerable more weight (and yes, on Wikipedia) than some random guy.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And one thing more, apologies if I cause an edit conflict. Looking at Karsanty's organizations webpage here (google translate result) there seem to be several useful links, that might be useful in presenting Karsanty's present position, and the reaction to it. You do seem to have used the Wall Street Journal Europe article, however, there are others. Even if you editorally don't want to use them for valid reason, do they not go to the weight of what may or may not be a majority or minority view (assuming, doubtfully, that this can be determined)?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added coherent mass of evidence to the lead, making it clear that the court didn't rule on the accuracy of the report itself. [63] I can't see any material on the Karsenty site that would be useful, apart from things we've already used. Did you have anything particular in mind? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you later. That isn't the lede, by the way, it is part of the article body unless I am missing something. And I would think the Hebrew Calendar is widespread enough that you shouldn't have had to add a publisher. Common knowledge.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the lead. It looks very long in edit mode because there are a few quotations in footnotes. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding how to judge what the majority POV is, this May 27, 2008 editorial in the Wall Street Journal Europe might be helpful. [64] They have been sympathetic to the Karsenty position, namely that the incident was staged. They wrote after the May 2008 verdict in Karsenty's favour:

You probably didn't hear this news. International media lapped up the televised report of al-Durra's shooting on France's main state-owned network, France 2. Barely a peep was heard, however, when the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in a suit brought by the network against the founder of a media watchdog group. The judge's verdict, released Thursday, said that Philippe Karsenty was within his rights to call the France 2 report a "hoax," overturning a 2006 decision that found him guilty of defaming the network and its Mideast correspondent, Charles Enderlin.

That seems to confirm that the media has paid little attention to the hoax claims. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth bearing in mind is this: if this incident was staged, it means that King Hussein of Jordan and Colonel Gadaffi of Libya, who visited Jamal in hospital, were part of the conspiracy or had the wool pulled over their eyes, as did all the doctors who treated Jamal, the doctors who received Muhammad, and the pathologist who examined him, the hospital that certified him dead, and several of the key mourners at the funeral. Muhammad's family are in on it, obviously, pretending to be grief-stricken. Despite the money that Israel pays out regularly to Palestinian informants, not one of them has stepped forward in 10 years with information that Muhammad is still alive, or with a photograph of him, or with the story of how they pulled off the hoax. Despite the very large amounts of money the media and book publishers would pay for the story, Muhammad himself, now 22, has also failed to step forward, even though doing so would make him rich. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hardly think FAC is the venue for that argument. Here's another source from the Karsenty website, here, you asked for possible sources lined from there. Umm, SV, are you saying that the WSJ "have been sympathetic to the Karsenty position" for reporting it? Would you be willing to characterize the position of media who reported the original story in terms of sympathy?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a WSJ editorial, unsigned, meaning the newspaper's editorial board approved it. They are clearly sympathetic to the Karsenty position, as they happily confirm. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a Google news archive search for stories about this. It shows the number of stories per year, and allows you to click on the year to highlight those particular stories. We could perhaps use this to pin down what the majority position seems to have been throughout the coverage, and how (or whether) it changed. See results for "Muhammad al-Durrah"; "Muhammad al-Durra"; "Muhammad al-Dura"; "Mohammed al-Dura". SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moutet notes that "All of those present at the [Le Figaro] screening-illustrious visitors and France 2 executives alike, the op-ed recounted-had ended up in full agreement that it was impossible to determine where the bullets had come from, but that it was highly unlikely that they could have come from the Israeli garrison." is this in the story anywhere? • Ling.Nut 09:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular quote isn't, but there's a lot about the reaction of the people who were present. See the France 2 exec in the third paragraph of the lead, that no one could say who fired the shots (she was at the screening), and the section here about the three senior French journalists who attended it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the Figaro op-ed doesn't say that quite as clearly as Moutet does. There's a courtesy link here for the op-ed. You can run it through Google translator for a rough English version. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to apologize again for being so disengaged as you face a (somewhat) rough nom (but not as rough as RCC forex). I think the link to "fifth grade" is a bit of a minor Easter egg; text should say some like "fifth grade in a Palestinian school" (you can make it sound better), with the link on the last two words for clarity. I think the "The scene on the day" section is a bit odd, since the images precede the text and take up a lot of vertical real estate before the text begins. Two or at most three sentences before the images would seem less odd. Finally, if you think the reviewers are POV or have shifted the article too far toward one POV, then move some evidence from the Palestinian POV to the lead. ... the fact that no one has seen the boy, or the father's offer to let the body be exhumed, perhaps? Oh and that "minimalist/maximilist" explanation seems lead-worthy as well. Up to you. • Ling.Nut 05:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that moving the POV in that manner could cause reviewers to reconsider ... as you yourself said, SV.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added something about the independent group and polygraph/disinterment offer to the lead, and moved a paragraph above the diagrams in the Scene on the day section. [65] Can't see what to do about the fifth grade thing. I would prefer not to have it there. One of the reviewers asked for it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a message from the Truly Picky department: many of your external links in the refs/cites are missing access date info. I have no idea whether this info is required or not, but I do believe consistency is required. So... hey, just work on the cites a bit. • Ling.Nut 06:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only ones that need access dates are where the material appeared only on a website, not in print. I think they do all have access dates, though I'll check again. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! I didn't know about the crucial word only. Got a link to the relevant rule etc.? • Ling.Nut 06:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CITE#Citation styles: "the date you retrieved it if it is online ..." That wording was added recently. It used to say only if online. There's no sense in adding an access date if the article's in print. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added access to dates to everything that exists online, even if it's in print too. Once this FA is over (if it is ever over!), I'll ask at WP:CITE whether there was consensus for that change. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned. I think you've pushed it too far in the direction of the Palestinian POV. Such an offer, to offer to have disinterred an unembalmed body unprotected against the elements, what difference does that make after all this time? And to have a polygraph test taken on someone who was not there? What's that got to do with the price of pita? To have these things presented in this manner is not NPOV. I've held my nose on a lot of things in the interest of seeing a difficult nomination through in the interests of the encyclopedia. Ling Nut said, "if you think" that the reviewers have pushed the article in a certain direction, you can do such and such, he did not say you should or ask you to do it. You've taken the comment as carte blanche. Will wait and see what you do, but the lede is now bloated and unbalanced.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, if you want to oppose, please do, and we can leave it up to the delegates. For their information, Wehwalt objects to this being added to the lead:

In September 2008, Patrick de Carolis, the CEO of France Télévisions, which runs France 2, agreed to set up an independent group of experts to examine the issues.[12] Enderlin and Abu Rahma have offered to take polygraph tests if the soldiers at the IDF outpost take one too, and Jamal has said he is willing to have the boy's body disinterred."[13]

I've been willing to go along with Wehwalt's suggestions, but I have to draw a line now, both because I don't want the article to go too far in the direction of his POV (or anyone else's), and also because this is but flesh and blood that types here. I rewrote this article in October, which took a couple of weeks. I worked on it again in December and submitted it on December 31. At that point, I basically did another rewrite, mostly at Wehwalt's request, and extended several sections, which took me until January 14 of fairly solid work. And bear in mind that the edits you see tell only half the story, or less, because a lot of research went into this too. I've responded to all suggestions promptly. I've removed most of the images, though I believe some of them were needed for neutrality. It's now January 24. I'm done. I want my life back. The question is whether it's FA standard, and I believe it is, not whether it's perfect. So let the chips fall where they may. :)
To the delegates: the addition to the lead is not vital, so if the FA hangs on that, I'll remove it. But if it doesn't hang on it, I'd prefer to keep it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I don't believe there's any such thing as a Right Version of this article. There's nothing in here that would make me throw an NPOV-based hissy fit, though. May need more nitpicky edits, etc, though. • Ling.Nut 07:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to clarify that my remarks about "NPOV-based hissy fit" were about my tendency to do that (see forex Climate change denial). I just returned from dinner with the wife, and while eating it struck me that others may have misinterpreted my remarks. • Ling.Nut 11:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am sympathetic to SV's point of view, but this is why this article should have gone to peer review in the first place. We've spent several hundred thousand bytes trying to bring it to something approaching a neutral point of view, then at a slight suggestion from Ling Nut that she add on more Palestinian POV, she immediately does so, at some length. I'm sorry, if the article was satisfactory to both of us before, then why the addition? Yes, this has been a difficult FAC. It happens. It's an object lesson in why you seek outside feedback (that is, not in the hothouse of an article talk page or a WikiProject) before you bring an article to FAC. There remains considerable point of view in this article, much of which is expressed by choice of words and choice of position (in an overwhelming majority of crucial paragraphs and sections, though I will say not all), there is a choice to end with the Palestinian point of view. I'm not going to get into a numbers game, because some are debatable, but that's what I see in the article. I am somewhat distressed by this. I felt that we had reached a satisfactory accommodation, but going on and loading on one side of the scale does cause a problem, even if it makes me look indecisive. The delegates know I've worked with SV on this review and remained engaged and open to reconsideration. But reconsideration is a two way street. I should add that the oppose is clearly actionable. At this point, I am going to disengage, unwatch, and save some pixels. If further reconsideration is wanted, my talk page is always open. Note that I need the NFCC issues resolved too, but that's all I'm asking.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt 3 edit

Dweller edit

No opinion yet. That said, I think this article is a monster - there are potential POV problems waiting to break out on practically every word. The fact that the editors have got this close does them immense credit. I'm unsure it's ready yet for featured status, as I have some sympathy for various unaddressed issues above, and think there are probably others not yet raised, but I'd like to see it given the best chance of succeeding. For that reason, I'm commenting now to gently suggest to the FAC delegates that they let this one run for some time longer than they might otherwise do. And a suggestion to everyone - this page is likely to get very long - use of collapsing boxes for issues everyone agrees are addressed would be a good idea. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth edit

  • Comments -
  • Just a note here, I'm not doing an indepth review of whether or not the sources used are used "properly", just whether they meet the minimum standard for RS for Wikipedia. Given the nature of this article, I doubt that misuse of sources would escape other editors. I've also done some small ref tweaks to various and sundry formatting glitches.
  • Need to note non-English languages in the references.
  • On the Barnes and Noble ref, are you referencing the B&N blurb on the webpage or the book itself? If the book, title should be in italics.
  • the Feb 8, 2005 BBC ref needs a last accessdate.
  • The Hebrew Calender ref, needs a publisher, and what makes this a reliable source?
  • The Juffa ref needs a publisher
  • One further concern is that not all the newspaper article links go to the respective paper's websites. We need to make sure that we are not linking to copyright violations, and that all the various sites used for these courtesy links have the right to reprint the articles.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dates you added to the Refs section have made the Refs inconsistent with the in-text citations (e.g. Smith 2005).
  • I think it's obvious the French articles are in French. Are you saying I need to add "French" somewhere?
  • I'm referencing the Barnes and Noble blurb, not the book.
  • The Hebrew Calendar isn't used as a source as I recall; it's just see also in the footnote.
  • Will check out the Juffa ref.
  • I don't know how we can check that the courtesy link sites have the right to reprint the articles. Are you saying I should email them and ask if they have permission? I'm not going to do that, so I'd suggest simply removing any links you think may be copyright violations. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert my ref tweaks, that's fine. But please note that you'll need to go through and make all the newspaper titles consistent with quotation marks around them. Also I added a few missing dates. I don't make the rules on the MOS, it says that we have to label non-English sources with the language used. I agree, it's a silly rule, but it's unfortunatly required. As for the courtesy links, it isn't my job to make sure there are no copyright violations, it is the job of the nominators, I'm afraid. After trying to help by doing a good chunk of ref tweaks, and getting told I did it wrong, I can't say I'm inclined to do much else here. But, generally, any site that has permission to reprint an article will note that on the page hosting the reprint. If that information isn't there, then it's probably best to remove the link. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert, it's fine. I think I'll leave all the links in for the time being, because otherwise reviewers will ask me to start quoting from articles they can't read, but perhaps at the very end of the review, I'll remove any that appear to be copyright violations. I can only think of one offhand that might be -- a page that reproduces two articles from Le Figaro. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it's a silly rule, Ealdgyth, it ought to be removed, not required. :) Where does it say we have to do that? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here - Wikipedia:Linking. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's just a guideline. I really don't want to have to go around adding "Le Figaro, a French-language newspaper," as the guideline suggests, when the writer's name is French and the headline French. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of hte MOS, which is part of the FA criteria. The specific one is #2, "It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of...". At the top of Wikipedia:Linking it says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.". I don't like it much either, it's always struck me as pretty silly, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, as a piece of advice, there are lots of bits of the MOS that strike me as silly, but they are just hoops you have to jump through to get a FA. In the time you take to argue about it, they can be corrected. Please don't get me started on the non breaking spaces rules. And have you seen the video linked yesterday at WT:FAC? I share the lead writer's views on en dashes ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but the problem is that, if writers keep on "obeying" these rules, reviewers will continue to insist on them. Every time I approach FAC, I'm asked to do more and more. Instruction creep does creep forward, not backwards. I even did ALT text this time without a whimper, though I'm sorry to see that effort remains unacknowledged. :)
I can't find how to turn subtitles on for the video. I'm laughing already at the thought of it. :D SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I have a script for n-dashes. And I have Malleus who does my non-breaking spaces, thank the gods. Citations, however, I've got to do myself. And they make my eyes bleed. (Hell, today, running through FAC is making my eyes bleed... blech! 8 more to go!) SV, if you get the language thing removed, I will thank you forever (not that I have to worry about it, I do not use non-English sources, thankfully.) The subtitles are down in the lower right corner of the video box, mouse over the little icons and you should get a pop-up that turns on subtitles. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found them, it's brilliant! :D SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Can I ask that the last three little piddling things get taken care of so I can strike them off? BBC ref needs a last accessdate, the Hebrew Calendar ref needs figuring out if its reliable or not (plus a publisher) and the language thing needs dealing with. The other two issues are notes for other reviewers, so they won't need to be struck for my work here to be done. (Frankly, the other issues on this FAC are swamping my watchlist...)Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help with "the Hebrew Calendar ref" if I can. Which one is it? --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did all of them, Ealdgyth, except for adding that the French stories are in French. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 11:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the (enhanced) Heb Cal ref now. I just wondered why it was needed at all? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The enhanced ref, or the use of it in the first place? The former, I don't know. The latter, I added it because we were discussing time and dates in Israel, and the fact that it was Rosh Hashana that day. So I added a 2000 Hebrew calendar. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SV. I'll be unwatching this, and if Sandy or Karan need me to check something, they'll ping me. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, I see no particular reason to have to cite the date of Rosh Hashana. I think it falls under common knowledge. The Hebrew Calendar is fairly widespread.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments edit

  • I haven't yet had a detailed look, but at this stage the writing looks excellent. I will return. Tony (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said there was no evidence that the boy was wounded in his right leg or abdomen, as reported, and that if the injuries were genuine, they did not occur at the time of the televised events. Had the shots come from the Israeli position, he wrote, only the lower limbs could have been hit." Somewhere in here an opening quotation mark is missing. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, check the toolbox; there is one disambiguation link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more dabs have been introduced amid the wave of changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: recent edits edit

I've added some material that I hope will alleviate Ling.Nut's and Wehwalt's concerns by making things clearer and more informative, as follows:

  1. New lead (already discussed above)
  2. Second Intifada section: I've added a sentence from the Mitchell report noting that Sharon's visit did not cause the Intifada, though it was poorly timed, and a longer quote to the same effect in a footnote.
  3. Charles Enderlin section: A bit more detail about who Enderlin is, how he was perceived at the time, and where he was during the incident.
  4. A new section called The scene on the day, with two subsections describing the layout of the junction, which news organizations were there, and what their raw footage showed.
  5. Expanded Israeli response section slightly, so I think it's clearer who said what.
  6. Controversy section introduction: attributed "maximalist" and "minimalist" narratives, and who calls the latter a conspiracy theory.
  7. IDF investigation section: expanded for clarity
  8. Karsenty appeal section: expanded a little.
  9. Esther Schapira documentaries section: expanded to describe her research in detail.
  10. A new (short) section called Metula News Agency on the Israeli press agency that has promoted the alternative theories.
  11. Also quite a bit of general tidying.

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully convinced it is NPOV. I was especially struck by the loss of the "substantial body of evidence" (I probably misquoted) statement in what otherwise seems a comprehensive description of the France 2 appeal. After my objection re IDF taking responsibility, it seems still a very misleading and incomplete way of putting it in the lede; the reader is going to take that as an admission of guilt, and the IDF's current position is never made as clear in the lede. There are a number of other matters. I will continue to await fuller discussion before taking a final position, but I still think this article would benefit from peer review, rather than trying to make it work with extensive changes at FAC, which is really not what we're here for.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, the article can't be pushed as far as you would like in the direction of the alternative theories. I've taken Ling.Nut's advice to expand on those theories so that readers can make up their own minds, so it's now considerably more comprehensive than it was, and I think clearer and easier to follow. As for the IDF, they did say they were responsible on day three or four; see this section. Their subsequent October 2000 investigation was somewhat unofficial and widely scoffed at, including in Israel itself.
As for the lead, the writing has to be kept tight, and we can't get into summarizing the ruling without explaining what we mean by the summary, so it opens a can of worms and would lead to a POV treatment. As it stands, we just say in the lead that his libel conviction was overturned. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing what I said. Can you read my comment again? I didn't ask for what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment as saying you'd like to see "substantial body of evidence" in the lead again, and I explain why it's problematic. And you feel that saying the IDF accepted responsibility within a few days is misleading, and I explain that they did, and that their subsequent investigation that overturned it is regarded as questionable. What did I miss? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you talk above about the IDF's current position. Do you know what it is? All I'm finding are contradictory statements from people not clearly in charge, something they've been criticized for by the alternative theorists, because they're not coming out with a clear position. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure they are hoping the incident goes away! Good point, I will amend that to say "later position". No, I'm not asking for the "coherent mass of evidence" to be in the lede, I'm asking for it to be in the body. As for the IDF, the statements from the days after the incident considerably varied, yet you summarize it as an acceptance of responsibility. I should note that I do not believe your cite to the Toronto Star of 10/4/00 is sufficient, we usually insist on the article name, the author if there is a byline, and either the page number or an online link.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto Star cite in the Ref section is: "The Toronto Star (October 4, 2000). "Israel admits to killing boy, 12." No byline. I will look to see if it's online, but I think the Star is Canwest, and they're not good with their online archives. "Coherent mass of evidence" is in the body of the article in the Appeal upheld section. Israel did accept responsibility. The named chief of the army did, the named government spokesmen did. It was others who didn't -- people not in charge. I think the section makes that clear enough. I could rename the subhead to "initial Israeli response," but as it's in the "Incident as initially reported" section, I felt that was already clear. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is a pain with former canada.com articles, but such is Wikipedia, we have high standards for citation at FAC. As for talking about the acceptance of responsibility, I'm talking about the lede this time. As for Israeli command structure, are you saying that those not in charge set out to undermine their superiors' acceptance of responsibility? I think that that would really have to be cited, whether you are saying it or just implying it. Keep in mind that this would be the case in any nominated article. The lede would need to fairly reflect what's in the body, and if similar implications are made, the nominator would be expected to back it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As for talking about the acceptance of responsibility, I'm talking about the lede this time." Not sure what you mean by this. The lead makes clear that the army accepted responsibility within a few days. And they did. It also makes clear that over the following months and years, this came to be questioned. Now, I can add to the first mention of responsibility in the lead that it was later somewhat altered, but it would be over-egging the pudding somewhat (the lead doth protesteth too much). Also, have you read the section on the October 2000 IDF investigation? It involved replicas being built in the desert by people with no ballistics training. People were laughing at it. Haaretz said, "it is hard to describe in mild terms the stupidity of this bizarre investigation." So we can't represent that in the lead as, "They initially said they did it, but a later IDF investigation showed otherwise," as if the later investigation was a formal and respected one.
Regarding your question about the lower ranks undermining the superiors, no source that I've found says that explicitly, but it's clearly what happened, which is how you ended up with the strange October 2000 investigation. Some IDF people were furious that the IDF accepted responsibility, and did it so fast. I can perhaps find a source that says that. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More NPOV concerns: I'd like to see the instances of "shooting" changed to "incident"; I'd like some of the experts mentioned in the lede (facial recogniton, ballistics, etc.); I'd like "Muhammad was buried" altered to a non-NPOV stance ("a burial was held for a boy identified as Muhammad" e.g.). I am truly and sincerely sorry that I am dashing in and out. My remarks are not complete. I sincerely apologize. • Ling.Nut 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can look to remove instances of "shooting." The other suggestions I'd feel uncomfortable with, because it buys too much into the alternative theories. The facial recognition man was commissioned by the German television program. The French ballistics man commissioned by Karsenty. That doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean they're not independent sources. They're also barely mentioned by reliable sources, so I feel it would be UNDUE to add them to the lead. I'll try to find a workaround for the funeral wording. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the BBC article that you use as support, only says that the IDF officer said that Israelis were "apparently" or "probably" responsible. You delete the caveat. How about something like "While initial IDF statments indicated that it was likely responsible for al-Durrah's death, it subsequently conducted a controversial investigation that it states eliminated the possibility that the boy could have been hit by Israeli fire." Also, still waiting for resolution on the "coherent mass of evidence" thing in the article body.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... well, I'd hardly call that completely neutral. Regardless of whether you feel the IDF investigation was a comedy routine, it appeared to form part of the Israeli position. I would say that what you are doing is closely analagous to the situation of a defendant who confessed and then withdrew his confession, "He confessed." That would hardly be a fair summation, and it is hardly a fair summation here. I realize you don't think highly of the later Israeli investigation, but firing shots at an identical pipe does seem the way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel anything about the Shahaf/IDF investigation. All I do is report what the sources say about it, and they're uniformly critical so far as I can tell. Even the IDF and the Israeli govt distanced themselves from it, Haaretz calling it almost a pirate endeavour. We therefore can't write about it as though it was a respected, mainstream, official investigation. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"uniformly critical". It is sweeping statements like that, I suspect, and the effects on the article which come from that, that make it so hard to support. This article says "An Israeli army investigation concluded the gunfire could not have come from their position". This one (different author, same publication says "An Israeli military probe found that its soldiers couldn't have shot the father and son, given where the two were crouching." I will say this. Reviewing a contentious article is difficult. It must have been hard for reviewers when I submitted Natalee Holloway (with two conoms) and Jena Six, because people had strong views about the incidents described. However, we were very careful with the sourcing and how we characterized them, and that never became a serious issue. You need to do exactly the same thing. You need to make very sure that reviewers, especially those who interact with you here, are not left with the perception, possibly unjust, that every time you flip a coin in characterizing sources and quotes, that it does not come down on the side with the P mintmark. I am being blunt, while continuing to engage with you here. Please consider what I am saying as an attempt to help you. As I have said before, it would be the simplest thing possible for me to have maintained my oppose and gone away. I am trying to assist you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a strong POV on this issue, and it makes things awkward. I don't mean that disrespectfully and I hope it doesn't sound as though it is. I appreciate the input. But if I were to accede to your every request, the article would be unacceptably slanted in favour of the alternative theories. I feel you're picking and choosing which sources to highlight. I know that it's hard to do otherwise, because the only alternative is for you to spend weeks reading all the sources, so that you know which ones are representative. But that leaves a problem for me. I've been reading about this since 2006, and reading about it carefully since I started the re-write in October 2009. My reading of the sources as a whole is that the alternative views are more or less ignored by mainstream sources, and most of those who do report on them positively do so with caution. That the sources were "uniformly critical" is a fact. The Wall Street Journal opinion piece that you cite was written by Nidra Poller, who has been heavily involved in promoting the minority thesis. One of the problems here is that you're allowing all the sources equal weight.
Anyway, the point is that I can't slant this article any further in the direction you want. I'm sorry. I do thank you for your input so far, which has helped me to see areas that needed to be clarified. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has a POV on a lot of things. I'm generally sympathetic to the subjects of my bio articles, less so to the Nazi and sympathiser I wrote about, both of which are FA's. But the trick is not to make it show in the writing. You are welcome, and if it is OK, I will continue to comment. If you are interested, personally I think the boy probably died, but that it is just impossible to tell who killed him, and not really that relevant anyway which bullet "done him in". Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our personal sympathies or POVs are irrelevant. We should rely on what reliable sources say, which is something we've been disucssing on the talk page for some months now. As SlimVirgin stated, the vast majority of reliable sources were highly critical of General Samia's investigation. Your links to an op-ed by Nidra Poller in the WSJ Europe, and an article that cites Poller in the sentence immediately prior to your selected quotation ("But nagging doubts soon emerged, as Nidra Poller recounts here. An Israeli military probe found that its soldiers couldn't have shot the father and son, given where the two were crouching.") have little bearing on how most reliable sources reported on the investigation.
Normally this would be too much detail for such a discussion, but since editors here haven't been privileged to the full discussion and source review for the last several months, it might be helpful to discuss how reliable sources reported the investigations & comments about them:
  • Muhammad and Jamal al-Durrah are shot.
  • Three days later, General Giora Eiland, Israeli Army Chief of Operations, said "There was an investigation by the major-general of the southern command and apparently (the boy was killed by) Israeli army fire at the Palestinians who were attacking them violently with a great many petrol bombs, rocks and very massive fire."[70] The Major General of the Southern Command was Yom-Tov Samia.
  • Nahum Shahaf, a civilian Israeli physicist, watches the video, notices an "apparent anomaly."[71]
  • Shahaf contacts Yosef Duriel, an Israeli engineer, after reading an editorial Duriel wrote that criticized the IDF for not saying that the Palestinians had used al-Durrah as a human shield. Shahaf proposed they work together on an investigation.
  • A few weeks after the shooting, Shahaf and Duriel contact General Samia to perform a investigation.[72] Some criticized the investigation because General Samia had an apparent conflict of interest (as the person in charge of the base accused of the shooting), while others criticized the use of civilian investigators (Shahaf had previously, and controversially, raised questions about who shot Yitzhak Rabin). The investigation consists of a reenactment of the shooting at another location (because the IDF bulldozed the original).
  • Mid-investigation, Duriel does an interview in which he said that the investigation would prove that the Palestinians had deliberately shot the al-Durrahs as propaganda. Samia fired Duriel for his comments.
  • The investigation is completed, concluding that the Palestinians may have shot the al-Durrahs (the so called "minimalist" alternative theory view). The investigation "never published the report of its findings nor the identity of its members."[73]
  • The investigation was not accepted as the official Israeli position, and was widely panned by government officials and the media: "Reports say the Israeli army's chief of staff, Gen. Shaul Mofaz, assured Knesset members that Samia acted alone and that the army was investigating his actions. It has been reported that the scientists used by Samia were not ballistic experts and that at least one of them was convinced that Palestinians shot Aldura before they began the project. The Ha'aretz newspaper quoted Knesset member Ofir Pinnes as saying, 'It seems that instead of dealing with the incident and drawing harsh conclusions, the army preferred to conduct a fictitious reconstruction...with preconceived conclusions.'"[74] Ha'aretz wrote that "The fact that an organized body like the IDF, with its vast resources, undertook such an amateurish investigation—almost a pirate endeavor—on such a sensitive issue, is shocking and worrying."[75] Duriel sues a man that sent a letter, critical of the investigation, to the editor of Haaretz. He loses the case. The Israeli judge comments that that investigation was "amateurish, not meticulous, not objective and unprofessional".
And so on... Shahaf & Duriel go off and perform their own investigations. Shahaf collaborates with German journalist Esther Schapira on her documentary in the following year, but is "disappointed" that she only advances the "minimum" version of his case (that the Palestinians may have shot them). Schapira then makes another documentary questioning if the boy was even killed. Karsenty gets sued for his comments, and the case goes back & forth on appeal. Years later, Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office says he thinks the whole thing is a hoax, but the Israeli government distances itself from his comments. Yada yada yada. ← George talk 04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a note was left on my talk page. There's now 160K on this nom, so stuff easily gets lost! Right now I am neutral on this article, but may yet take a position. I'm waiting to see how other editors weigh in. I'm also curious to see how the article's very heavy reliance on fair use images gets resolved. We haven't yet had an image check. Watching and waiting. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli response section clarified, as requested. See here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 10:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good source, many thanks. I also appreciate your reformatting the references so you can go with one click from teh reference section either to the actual reference or the text. But if I read the piece correctly (definitely usable under WP:SELFPUB, the Israeli position in 2000 was that they has shot the boy, so I drop any quibble on acceptance of responsibility. But you say that it shifted by 2007. If I read the JP piece, the guy is saying that by 2001, Israel was saying that it was unclear who had shot the boy. Suggest you make an appropriate change there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear enough that the change was gradual. Obviously there are two clear points in time -- formal admission in October 2000, then formal withdrawal of that admission in September 2007. But in between there was shifting:

In late October 2000, General Samia set up a controversial team of largely non-military investigators (see below), who concluded that the IDF was probably, or certainly, not responsible, depending on who was issuing the statement. The investigators' report was not published, but was presented in 2001 to the Prime Minister's foreign media adviser, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, and Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office. Gissin and Seaman began to challenge France 2 in media interviews, to the point where the network threatened the Prime Minister's office three times with legal action. In 2005, Major-General Eiland publicly retracted the army's admission of responsibility, and in September 2007 a government press office statement to that effect was approved by the Prime Minister's office. Seaman writes that this was done, at least in part, because Israel's reluctance to support Philippe Karsenty in the libel action France 2 had brought against him (see below)—a reluctance based on an unwillingness to appear to interfere in another state's legal proceedings—was being misinterpreted as a validation of the France 2 report.

Also, the Seaman article doesn't count as self-published. It was published by The Jerusalem Post. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selfpub covers more than just cranking your own printing press, it includes questionable sources. It is an op-ed piece, normally that would not be usable, but it can be for Israel's position. I don't see why the statement in the article that by 2001 Israel had taken the position that they didn't shoot the kid and was acting on that is not used instead of 2007. Is there any shifting going on between 2001 and 2007? It seems that they considered the matter closed in 2001, realized that their position was being misinterpreted in 2007, and issued a clarification. It seems pretty clear that by 2001 at the latest, Israel was saying "it wasn't us", the rest is relatively minor.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SELFPUB covers only sources that are clearly self-published. And an SPS is not the same as a questionable source either. This is neither. It's a primary source, perfectly fine to use.
Israel hadn't taken the position that they didn't do it by 2001. It was just individuals in govt challenging the assumption. You seem to read things very differently from me, Wehwalt. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we agree it is usable. Nuff said.

The 2001 thing seems to come from this in the JPost article:

The analysis and findings were presented to the prime minister's foreign media adviser, Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, and then to myself in early 2001. After reviewing dozens of hours of materials, and only after all our questions had been addressed to our satisfaction, was our initial skepticism transformed into confidence that there was no basis for the accusations leveled against Israel in the France 2 story. Armed with that knowledge, both Gissin and I, as official representatives of the State of Israel, challenged the integrity of the France 2 report in several media interviews.

While it doesn't say when those challenges took place, the language used seems to suggest a time contemporaneous to 2001. That's what I am going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the paragraph I added makes that clear enough, I think. It took them another six years before they could persuade the govt to issue a formal retraction of the admission. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that "it took them another six years before they could persuae the govt to issue a formal retraction of the admission"? I don't read the article that way. That implies that they were trying and failing to do that. I don't see that anything really happened as regards the Israeli position after 2001 other than a formal statement being issued in 2007. I also don't like the word "admission" in the lede, I would suggest "statement" or "position". Admission is more or less equivalent to confession.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was an investigation in 2000 that the govt distanced itself from, Seaman got on board in 2001, it took another four years for the IDF to change its position formally, and another two years for the govt to do so formally. They did admit it in 2000. Sorry, I think the confusion within Israel has been made clear enough. If we impose any more clarity on it, we'll be distorting it. :) The fact is, there was internal dissent, internal confusion, inconsistent public statements. And I have length concerns now, so I don't want to go into any more detail on that point. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another update edit

Just to clarify, in case this page is confusing, I've finished the expansions and clarifications for Ling.Nut and Wehwalt, and the edits I'm making now are just tweaks while I wait for other reviews. I can't see any key issue that is missing or that remains unclear, and I think the length now has to be watched, so I'm reluctant to expand anything else. The changes have been:

  1. New lead
  2. Second Intifada section: I've added a sentence from the Mitchell report noting that Sharon's visit did not cause the Intifada, though it was poorly timed, and a longer quote to the same effect in a footnote
  3. Charles Enderlin section: More detail about Enderlin, his stature in France, and where he was during the incident.
  4. A new section called The scene on the day, with two subsections describing the layout of the junction, which news organizations were there, and what their raw footage showed.
  5. Expanded Israeli response section, so I think it's clearer how their position has evolved over time.
  6. Controversy section introduction: attributed "maximalist" and "minimalist" narratives, and who calls the latter a conspiracy theory, explained a little more what the basic problems are.
  7. IDF investigation section: expanded for clarity
  8. Karsenty appeal section: expanded for clarity.
  9. Esther Schapira documentaries section: expanded to describe both her documentaries in detail.
  10. A new (short) section called Metula News Agency on the Israeli press agency that has promoted the alternative theories.
  11. Added images from the pathologist, the funeral, and what appears to be an image of Muhammad on a hospital trolley.
  12. Swapped the infobox for one with more appropriate parameters.
  13. Quite a lot of general tidying and copy editing for flow.

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As this page nears 200kb, I think it is time for those of us who have been watching the discussions to declare our hands. When I first read the article I shared some of the concerns expressed about POV content and questions of balance, though not perhaps to the extent expressed by others here. As a result of the lengthy discussions and negotiations I believe that the article is now as neutral as it is possible to be, given the flammable nature of the topic. No doubt it is impossible to get everyone's agreement on this, but I think SlimVirgin is to be commended for the way she has engaged with the article's critics – who should also be commended for the civil and generally constructive way in which these discussions have been conducted. I don't normally like seeing this degree of debate at FAC, but in this case I think it was justified, and I can't think that such attention would have been devoted to it in any other forum. The article is no doubt capable of further minor improvement, and I may yet essay a few prose tweaks, but overall I am pleased to support the article as it stands; now possibly the most balanced account of the incident and its aftermath available anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Brian. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I'm not quite as enthusiastic as Brian, but I think this article gets the job done in a contentious area. The latest set of changes pushes it over the line for me. Featured articles are not perfection, there is a range in which they fall. I'm not totally convinced it is NPOV, I'm pretty sure it isn't, frankly, but it falls within the acceptable range of views. It is well written, and SlimVirgin has been more amenable to reasonable changes in the article than I expected when this hoorah started. I'm personally fairly weak kneed when reviewers come along and ask for changes, but I won't penalize SV for standing up for her article. I know she is considering at least one more nom in this contentious area of I/P relations, perhaps there will be lessons learned on both sides before she brings another one. Note that the article has yet to have an image check, my support is subject to any necessary changes being made there, it is quite possible that some of the fair use images may need to be looked at. I would not have written the article in the same manner. But it is within WP:WIAFA and ought to pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Wehwalt. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
np. It turned out much better than I expected it too. I think there are still questions about the images, but those will be addressed when one of our image hawks finally reviews the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I think this is a really good article. As you know, I often complain about tiny writing on maps and diagrams. The map is just on the boundary of readability, but the text on the diagram is way too small. In case it's my machine alone, I checked with His Grace, who said he can just read "Orchard", but nothing else. Do you have control of the original? Can the text-sizes be boosted? There's lots of white space for it. Tony (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 
  • I don't know how to increase only the text, Tony, and I'm wondering if it's anyway better to preserve the original. We do have a copy of it that a Wikipedian made, but it wasn't exactly the same -- some of the angles differed, though in ways that maybe don't matter. I'll try to find it and post it here. We could always just increase the size of the whole thing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have the image on the right, made by a Wikipedian, but for some reason he changed the angles of the crossroads. Not that it makes a difference, but it's not the same as the cameraman's original, and the writing isn't any much clearer, so I'd prefer to use the original. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've increased it to 350px; see here. It could probably be a little larger still if you prefer. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is possible the original image can be justified. This ne though, is intended to reproduce a copyrighted drawing, and I suspect it is incorrectly labeled as free use. I'd avoid it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slim V, this one is better, although if WP has control of the electronic copy, the blue text could be boosted. It's no big deal, and even if you have to go back to the previous one (which could possibly be positioned "center" and boosted more), I can cope. But in general, I do encourage WPians to be more generous in the font-size on their images, particularly when there's no shortage of space within the image.

I just want to make a point that SV sometimes takes on extremely challenging topics for her FA nominations, particularly WRT sourcing, structure and striking the right balance. Although entirely within our NOR rules, they manage to be original works and are valuable pieces on the Internet (there's no resource like this article, I think, in its synthesis). It's brave, and I think we should be very pleased someone is doing this. Tony (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Tony.
I've created three versions of the section called "The scene on the day" with various diagrams:
  • The first is the original cameraman's diagram centered and enlarged; see version one.
  • The second is a centered and enlarged copy of the cameraman's diagram created by a Wikipedian, but I'm not keen on this because it didn't get the angles quite right; see version two.
  • The third has the cameraman's original 2000 diagram and the French ballistic expert's 2008 diagram enlarged and side by side, explaining the key difference between them; see version three.
I think my own preference is version three, because it makes things immediately clear for the reader. An objection to it might be that it places the cameraman's version on a par early on with the ballistic expert's version; some editors might object to that because the latter is connected to the alternative theories, and specifically because the ballistics expert was hired by Philippe Karsenty for his appeal in 2008. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last seems preferable. Please remember that someone owns the copyright on the cameraman's diagram. Therefore, a "reproduction" by a Wikipedian is a reproduction (as you note, somewhat changed) of a copyrighted image, and the Wikipedian has no rights he can release under the Creative Commons license. Even if the original qualifies as fair use, the reproduction cannot.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also have concerns that the altered angles in the copy might somehow affect the ballistics arguments. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that too, but am content to let you make that argument :) . I just stuck to policy!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, let me observe that your line that this nomination should fail because it didn't go through GA or peer review first is not admissible. Correct me, please, but I see no such FAC criterion. This is what makes me suspect that there's a prejudgement here, almost on personal grounds. It's only a suspicion, not an accusation, though.

The article, IMO, is just excellent. It's a hard one in which to get the angle right, but the nominator is highly skilled and experienced in (1) sourcing and verification, and (2) attaining NPOV. I think the article is well worth the bronze star as an example of our best work—of WP's ability to debate its way through the delicate issues at play in this article. Tony (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: first, it's not that freaking excellent. Probably through no fault of the nominator(s), it has a slight "consensual soup" tang to it. Second, and far more importantly — I've always gagged when people type "AGF". But AGF. • Ling.Nut 11:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ling, it's not a question of good or bad faith. It's just never a good idea for one reviewer to have so much input when it comes to a delicate POV balance. Wehwalt posted thousands of words, 22kB in around 70 posts, switching from oppose to strong oppose to neutral to weak support and back to oppose, depending on whether he liked what I was writing. That isn't appropriate when it's someone with a strong POV of his own. Otherwise what we're saying is that this one person's point of view may overrule the input of the other reviewers, and the 400 editors who've worked on the article, and the person who's done most of the writing, and that can't be right. An article like this needs to be reviewed by largely disinterested people.
Don't take that to mean that Wehwalt's input wasn't helpful, because it was. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images edit

In the hope this makes things easier for reviewers, there are 23 21 18 images in the article, 15 13 10 of them fair use. This is more fair use than would normally be acceptable in an FA, but if there were ever a strong case for it, it's here. The entire controversy is about the images of the boy: the raw footage and what it shows; the images of the boy in the morgue and hospital; and the images used of him elsewhere and their impact e.g. postage stamps.

A breakdown of the fair-use images:

  1. Seven are frames taken from the original France 2 raw footage: (a) the lead image, (b) Jamal waves in the direction the cameraman said the bullets were coming from, (c) Jamal seems to shout something in the direction of the cameraman, (d) the reported impact, (e) the scene directly after the reported impact, (f) showing the pattern of bullet holes in the wall, (g) the scene France 2 cut. France 2 retained the copyright on this footage, but released it free of charge to media around the world in September 2000. It has become iconic and ubiquitous, and it's the only real evidence that exists of what happened.
  2. Two are diagrams—the France 2 cameraman's and the ballistics expert's—of the junction on the day of the shooting. They are important because there is a key difference between them regarding where the Palestinian police were standing. Both diagrams have been submitted as evidence to court cases in Paris.
  3. This is of the funeral. It is taken from a documentary about the incident, though who originally filmed it is unknown. Some sources say the boy at the funeral is clearly Muhammad, though others say it is not him, including a facial-recognition expert.
  4. This was taken by the pathologist in the Gaza hospital morgue, and released to a German documentary-maker and others. Again, it is used for comparison purposes with the image in the funeral. Some sources are arguing it is not Muhammad. The article would be significantly less informative without those two images.
  5. A frame from footage taken of the same scene from a different angle by Reuters, and owned by them. It is being used to show that another cameraman did film the situation, though he didn't film the shooting. Jamal's hand can be seen in the lower left of the image. This image is also widely available.
  6. This is an image of unknown provenance that was obtained by the German documentary-maker. She said in the documentary that she does not know where it came from. It appears to be Muhammad, and he seems to be wearing the same shirt that was seen in the raw footage.
  7. This image of Jamal in hospital the day after the incident is included because his injuries are being questioned. Copyright is France 2, but these images were also released for free by the network.
  8. This image of stamps that bear the al-Durrahs' image, as an example of the tributes that were paid across the Arab and Muslim world.

Free-licenced images are:

  1. Temple Mount
  2. Map of the Gaza Strip
  3. Efraim Sneh
  4. Isaac Herzog
  5. Shaul Mofaz
  6. Ophir Pines-Paz
  7. The boy in the Warsaw Ghetto
  8. Avenue Al Qoods, Bamako, Mali

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout's comments edit
My question is why is File:Diagram of junction with Schlinger report.JPG is used twice? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until a couple of days ago, it was used only in the lower section. Then I enlarged it, and added it to the earlier section next to the cameraman's diagram, for the sake of comparison. I was unsure whether to remove it from the lower section at that point, or leave it there for the reader to look at again, so I left it. If it's a fair-use issue (i.e. if we can only justify one use), I'd prefer to remove it from the lower section. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 07:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a fair use image, I would suggest removing the lower image and perhaps make a link to the top section to both maps. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, my concerns are addressed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could whoever gives the images a second once over assure themselves of compliance with WP:NFCC? That is really my concern on that front. It does contain a lot of fair use images. It may be justified, and I've been urging SV to beef up the rationales, which she has, at least here. But I'd like to see it specifically addressed by an outside person with image experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs's comments edit
  • On a non-substance side, it would be nice if all the rationales and source info was consolidated into a template like {{Non-free use rationale}}. Many reviewers (ok, I do at least) like this because it makes it much easier to see which part of the FU rationales need work and which are sufficient. Anyhoo.
  • Free images look fine, with appropriate info, sources, et al (I cannot however verify this OTRS ticket as I do not read Hebrew).
  • All the free images have rationales. The question is a) the strength of those rationales, b) if they substantially increase readers understanding and if it would be a serious detriment without them, and c) their resolution. I have issues with some of them, below:
SV response to David edit
  • You're suggesting that we remove some of the most important images. Bear in mind that the frames from the France 2 footage were all used in evidence in the Paris Court of Appeal in 2008. They were shown to the court and described and analysed frame-by-frame, because each frame is important. It would be odd to have a comprehensive FA on the incident that excluded them. They're the source of the controversy. They are the story.

-- France 2 footage from Sept 30, 2000:

-- France 2 footage from October 1, 2000:

  • the image of Jamal injured is important because some people are saying he wasn't shot; France 2 distributed this image to show that he was in hospital and appeared injured.

-- Other non-free images:

  • the pathologist's image of the boy in the mortuary is obviously important in an article about whether he is dead; the pathologist has given the images to journalists because of the doubts that he died.
  • the Reuters image shows the perspective of a cameraman who was hiding with the al-Durrahs for a few minutes. This is taken from behind them. It shows the reader what they saw. Again, this is an image that was shown to the court in Paris. The importance of it is that critics say it shows two things: (a) that this wasn't such a dangerous position to be in because a cameraman was also there for part of the time, and (b) that, if the Reuters man was able to move away, so were the al-Durrahs.
  • you said above of File:Funeral image Muhammad al-Durrah 2.JPG and File:Schapira documentary image, possibly Muhammad al-Durrah.JPG, "We're not forensic experts, how are we supposed to know if they're the same kid or not." The point is not so that we can decide. It is twofold: first, in an article about whether a boy died, an image from his funeral is clearly relevant, and secondly, the point is to show the reader which images are causing the controversy, and which images are being compared by the sources.
  • I've removed the image of the stamps. [77]

SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt's comment edit

Comment Unhappily, sometimes we have to sacrifice images we love to get compliance with WP:NFCC. It is tough. It frankly sucks. But we are the free encyclopedia, which means that almost everything therein shoudl be free. A FA is our best work, an exemplar of what it means to be Wikipedia. It should not heavily rely on unfree images. I will say this. The lead image (which is not free, of course) is utterly iconic and eye catching. You could have no other images in the article and it would barely matter. I could even make the argument that having too many images is distracting the reader from the first one. Note also this: Wikipedia is intended just as a starting point. With the many links in the article, the sufficiently interested reader can go on and discover other images. Having too many images is just as bad as having too much text, either way it is clutter and diminishes the impact on the reader. From my exprience (and I bet, at heart, your experience) with FAs, you know you are going to have to lose "some of the most important images". Your writing has been praised by some of the best people we have here, the images do not make or break the article, because the prose has already made it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV's views on which images are crucial and why edit

I see the following fair-use ones as crucial, in the sense that the article would be seriously undermined without them:

  1. the lead image, because it is the best-known of all the frames (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal), and it is neutral: he's not waving or shouting in either direction, Israeli or Palestinian—I need a neutral one for the lead.
  2. the two diagrams of the junction on the day, File:Diagram with cameraman's affidavit1.JPG and File:Diagram of junction with Schlinger report.JPG, because the first is the cameraman's view of where the shooters were, and the second is the critics' view, and they differ in one crucial respect (shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  3. Jamal waving toward the Israeli post, because some sources say he was signalling to his killers (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  4. Jamal appearing to shout in the direction of the cameraman, because critics say he was shouting at his killers who were standing behind the cameraman; the cameraman says no, he was just shouting to the cameraman himself for help (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  5. the moment of the shooting, where all we see is dust; the fact that all we see is dust is one of the reasons for the controversy (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  6. the final frame broadcast by France 2, crucial because it is where France 2 chose to end their footage of the shooting, and announce that the boy was dead (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
  7. the scene after the final frame that was broadcast, crucial because it shows the boy was not dead when France 2 said he was; this is the frame that sparked the controversy (ordered to be shown to the Paris Court of Appeal)
And the following as important:
  1. the boy in the morgue, important because people are saying there was no dead boy, but here he is - a dead boy (image broadcast in France and Germany)
  2. the boy at the funeral, important because it seems to show the same boy who lay in the morgue, according to the sources (image broadcast all over the world)
  3. Jamal in hospital covered in bandages, a France 2 image, important because critics say he wasn't injured (image broadcast all over the world)
Any documentary, newspaper or magazine that was producing a comprehensive account would include these images if they had space. We do have space. Our fair-use policy allows for the use of this kind of image when the story hangs on it, and it really does in this case. Add to that the fact that France 2 distributed their images free of charge, so there is no monetary issue regarding those ones, which is the key reason for the fair-use restrictions. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, it's not space, but the idea that we should be using free content whereever possible, and thus that means essentially discouraging nonfree content. Whether or not a copyright holder has given permission for an image to be used (not changing the license), it really isn't germane to the points above. Yes, I'm sure there are lots of important images, but we have to prioritize. My point is that most of the content above can simply be described by text. Sure, it would be great to have visual accompaniment, but we can get on by just as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that all images could be described using words. If we allow any fair-use images, it means we do sometimes admit that words aren't enough, and given that this article is about the France 2 images -- the whole controversy is about the images -- and they've been distributed for free by the copyright holder, published repeatedly all over the world, have been ordered to be shown in public during at least one court hearing, and have become iconic, it would be bizarre not to include them. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, that the various "conclusions" drawn from seeing the man and the boy don't really come through from a still photograph. I do not think any of the man and boy are really needed except for the iconic one. It just loses something in translation from a video to a still, and I don't see that the reasons are strong enough to keep them. The one of the out of focus shot... well, it conveys just dust, which can be described in words. Jamal waving to the Israelis, well, all I see is him leaning against the barrel with his hand in the air. It's not possible from the image to see who he's waving at, he just has his hand facing the camera (which leads to interesting questions about what the cameraman was shooting :) )Then Jamal looking towards the camera, well, that really doesn't show anything, though it does allow for a caption for the cameraman to say it was "raining bullets". I think, SV, what you are trying to do is make them almost like a moving sequence, which is not a bad idea, it is just not possible in fair use. I note that the reader can readily find the original video through the references. What the current sequence does is try to be a poor-man's substitute for the video, and that's not why we have fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the photographs of the boy apparently dead are only important to rebut the contentions of a tiny minority. That are the only reasons you've stated here, after all!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an opinion from Elcobbola, who wrote the Signpost article on non-free images in FACs. I just want to leave this note for him here that the guideline I'm relying on is Wikipedia:Fair use, the "Acceptable use" section, where it says, "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." See here. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support

  • I have read much (but not all) of the article, which in general seems excellent. I am commenting on two issues: neutrality; and non-free images.
  • For the information of other participants here, I read the article as an outsider who knows nothing of this incident (other than my memory of hearing the news reporting many years ago): I came away with the impression that the prevailing argument is that the incident was probably a set-up of some sort. Reading the comments above, if the WP editorial consensus is that the set-up / hoax theories are minority / fringe, then the article does not have that 'feel' to it.
  • Regarding the images: I have some sympathy with Wehwalt's comment that stills from the video lose a lot in the translation, and that the article may not need all of these. I particularly agree that the one showing, basically, dust at the moment of shooting can readily be conveyed in words. The 'death throes' still image really is of little help - if anything, this moment can only be conveyed effectively with a moving image, so if the video is not available, then this still can also be replaced by words (which may give a more accurate sense of the issue than does the still image). Finally, i do not think the two body and funeral stills are necessary. Again, the words of the article actually give a better explanation of their significance. The other video stills appear to me to add more value. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamilton, I'm not sure I can do anything about the neutrality issue, because I changed a lot of the article in response to these reviews, so to change it back would risk unsettling the other supports. However, I may be able to tweak it here and there to deal with your concerns. Was there any section, any passage, any wording that added to your sense that the article was leaning too heavily in one direction? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed three images: death throes, funeral, and morgue. [79] I want to keep the sequence of France 2 images if at all possible. The lead image has to be neutral. It therefore can't be the one where he's waving to the Israeli position, and it can't be the one where he's shouting toward the Palestinian position. But I would like those both to be in the sequence, because commentators on either side cite those images as, "Ha, see? He's waving and shouting toward the direction of the bullets." The shooting dust image is there because it shows the camera went out of focus: commentators have asked why etc. It's a key issue.

    So anyway, that's it down to seven non-free images: five from the France 2 footage, and two diagrams. Would you regard that as acceptable? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed two more: to be neutral, I've removed the one where he seems to be waving to the Israelis, and the one where others says he was shouting to the Palestinians. [80] We are therefore left with (a) the neutral lead image, where he's neither waving nor shouting, (b) the moment of the reported shooting where the camera loses focus (this is a controversial and much-discussed frame on both sides), and (c) the last frame shown by France 2 where they declared the boy had died (also controversial and much-discussed on both sides). Plus the two diagrams. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-free image policy is not my strong suit, so i will be interested in other comments, but i think those image removals should at least make the task of ticking this article at FA a bit easier. You have removed the ones that I thought were most readily replaced with words, apart from the moment of the reported shooting, and i understand your argument in respect of that. You ask about specific suggestions re nuetrality in the text. Unfortunately i don't have specific suggestions - i know that is of very little help - i can only report the overall effect of reading the text on my 'sense' of the balance of views. I just raised it because there seemed to be a suggestion that theories that the boy didn't die, or was shot in a set-up of some sort were fringe views. If that is so, then one certainly doesn't get that impression. But I'm afraid that is all it is, an impression. I agree that it will be very difficult to re-open this debate on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. If the images use rationales are now in order (with the reduction in non-free image numbers), and editors overall consider the POV to be an acceptable compromise, then i would certainly support this being at FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Hamiltonstone. When I brought the article to FAC, it was much less inclined toward the alternative theories, but I had to change a lot of that in response to Wehwalt's and Ling.Nut's suggestions—and I believe Wehwalt feels I didn't change it enough, but I did as much as I felt I could justify. As it now stands, it shouldn't advocate for the alternative theories, or incline in their direction, but it also shouldn't undermine them. The structure was chosen carefully in that regard: the incident as initially reported (which reflects the original, mainstream "Israel did it" views) followed by a "controversy" section, which I normally don't like to have in articles, but in this case I felt it was needed to separate the views, rather than weaving them all throughout the text. So, for example, Esther Schapira, a respected, mainstream German journalist, is given her own section, rather than being used a secondary source throughout. In that way, the structure is signalling, "these are the alternative, minority views," while at the same time giving them sufficient coverage for readers to understand them. It was a difficult balancing act, and I know it's imperfect, but it was the only way to get agreement from editors and reviewers with different POVs. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I thought it was neutral enought to give support to. No article is completely neutral. It's in the ballpark. I feel that there is more that can be done, but suspect the remaining rough edges will be worn off over time. Regarding the images, I said my piece, and am content that it is being checked by our best NFCC people. As that is my only remaining issue, I see no need to alter my support, either the images are OK, or you will tweak them until they are, or this nomination will not succeed because of image issues. Very simple, really--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. I've spent at least two hours going through this. I initially had a list of grammatical niggles that, on further contemplation, were all subjective and might trigger other complaints. So, I'm just supporting. I think it's by far the best treatment possible; I challenge anyone else to do better. It certainly won't ever satisfy everyone, but we've got to have some path for controversial topics to become featured without getting mucked up in what sometimes amounts to personal opinion. Oh, someone broke note 150 by using a refname that isn't defined. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure how long a FAC remains open, but I don't think this article can be promoted as long as there are still disputes on the article talk page, which seems to be the case at the moment. Also, I have one or two concerns about this article myself. I haven't much time to respond here right now, so I will try to detail my concerns tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that's a useful criterion to try upholding. There are articles that will always have disputes—should they never be featured? Again, we need some path for controversial topics to become featured. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if I'm not mistaken, a minimum requirement even for a GA is that the article be stable, which can really only occur when there is general consensus that the article meets basic policy. There is currently at least one NPOV dispute on the article's talk page, raised by one or more users in good standing, and as a matter of principle I don't think an article should be promoted until such disputes are resolved. Other than that, as I said I have one or two issues of my own I would like to raise, but I can't really comment until I have more time to do so tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing notes edit

There are no {{convert}}s on distances; these should be added. There is a severe WP:NBSP problem with times and words like "France 2" wrapping (a global replace in a word processer should be able to catch them all). I'm not thrilled with how readers are bounced about in the text with "see here" or "see below", but unsure how to fix that ... any ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I did that deliberately. If I were writing this article on my own (i.e. where other views weren't an issue), I'd weave the controversy throughout the text. That's how I normally write articles, as far as possible. But here, the problem is that the controversy material outweighs the original mainstream view, just in terms of volume. So to weave it throughout the text would overwhelm the original view. The way I got round this was to maintain an article structure of "Incident as initially reported," where you basically get the October 2000 view of things, followed by Controversy, which is where you see how the story developed.
However, I had to solve the problem of giving either view too much weight in its own section. I therefore offer the reader links so she can dart back and forth as needed. So there is lots of "In 2000, X said Y, but see below," with a link to the section where Y later says X was lying. It was the only way I could make sure both "sides" had breathing space in their own sections, but didn't have the last word in those sections.
I'll add distance conversions. I'm never very sure of non-breaking spaces and where to put them. I'll try to figure it out. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks hard to avoid in this case (just want to go on record for other cases, where it usually can be avoided and is an indication of poor organization-- feel free to remove my inlines). The NBSPs can be added by copying all the text into a word processer; ping me or Dabomb87 if you need help later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think! Distance conversions, plus nbsp for times, France 2, and distances. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can help out with NBSP type stuff too if needed -- looks like it might be taken care of, but feel free to let me know if you have questions. -Pete (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Pete. I think it's done, but I'll give you a shout if not, or maybe for anything in the future. You may one day wish you hadn't offered. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [81].

M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) edit

Nominator(s): Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the article is about the last highway in my hometown that isn't already an FA. I feel that the article has been ready for a while, but now I'm ready to nominate it. Even if it doesn't pass, the article will be improved by the suggestions and comments generated at this forum. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Only one major issue, the rest minor -

**Reference 18 - 1940-Present. - present should be lowercase

    • Reference 9 is dead.
    • 1.2 - Here traffic along the highway can view the towers of the Cliffs Shaft Mine Museum. The museum is dedicated to telling the story of underground iron ore mining in the region. - combine sentences
    • running next to the Negaunee City Hall.[4] City hall was built in 1914–15 at a time when the city's population was increasing and iron production was peaking. - combine sentences
    • It seems odd to me that you describe AADT when there's a link to the article describing it right there.
    • History (the major issue)- Most of the information comes from maps. Are there no news articles / other types of sources available?
    • From this point on, BUS M-28 has run solo its entire length. - run solo? Sounds weird.
    • Major jct table - former should be capitalized

Rschen7754 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies:
    • Ref 18 follows the format given by the source. I can change it easy enough.
    • Since Ref 9 only verifies the once sentence there, I've contacted a friend who is the high school librarian for assistance at finding a newspaper clipping to replace it. School will start soon, so I should have a replacement source for the opening of the new high school, and its history shortly.
    • I see no reason not to give a simple explanation in the article rather than force a reader to click a link.
    • Of the 3 paragraphs of the history, 2 of them are sourced to non-maps. The ROW files are technically called maps, but they are referenced here for the dates of land acquisition for the M-35 location, much akin to the jurisdictional transfers involved with the 1999 relocation in Ishpeming. I don't see the issue here.
    • Any other comments are appreciated, as always. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All issues mentions should be addressed. Please advise if they aren't. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have a few concerns before I can support this for FA:
  1. The lead of the article appears to be short. Can a little bit of additional information be added?
  2. In the Traffic counts section, is it necessary to have a sentence defining what AADT is? The AADT article takes care of this need.
  3. "MDOT quotes 6,300 vehicles passing through in 2006" sounds awkward.
  4. Remove the "to" banners in the Major intersections table.
  5. Throughout the article, there are areas that need commas added to separate clauses, such as after "here" in the sentence 'Here traffic along the highway can view the towers of the Cliffs Shaft Mine Museum; the museum is dedicated to telling the story of underground iron ore mining in the region." ---Dough4872 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
  1. I will work on this after I take a break this evening for some company to visit. It shouldn't take long.
  2. As I explained above, there's no reason the section can't explain what AADT is instead of forcing a reader to click a link. I'd agree if the explanation given were longer than a single sentence, but in this case, that sentences gives the reader context without forcing him to divert into another article for the explanation. Other recent FAs provide a explanation of what this term means, which is good for the non-roadgeek reader. What we as roadgeeks assume is common knowledge isn't always.
  3. Changed.
  4. I placed the to banners in the list because there is a photo showing them in use. IMHO, it would be strange and inconsistent to have a photograph showing them in use and graphics in a table that omit them.
  5. I'm scanning through the article for these. If I miss any, please feel free to add them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Issues addressed. ---Dough4872 19:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (As a side note, great to see the Hunt's Guide to the UP being used as a source! It's a great book.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I found that it was deadlinked when I nominated the article... I noted above though that I'm working on finding a replacement dead tree source now that the school district is back in session this week. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The school district redesigned their website at some point, and I've found the new URL for the page that replaced the one in the original reference. The article has been updated accordingly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, images look good. NW (Talk) 17:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [82].

Helmut Lent edit

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I want to bring this article to the next level. I believe it may meet the featured article criteria. Please let me know how to improve. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: all photos are from the Bundesarchiv; as far as Commons is concerned, these images are CC-licensed for free use. The Nazi flag and Luftwaffe insignia are in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Conditional support:
    • "To be considered an ace, a pilot must be credited with shooting down five or more enemy aircraft during aerial combat; Lent shot down 110 aircraft, 103 of them at night."
      The explanation of "ace" seems a bit jarring here. I suggest changing the two sentences to "Lent shot down 110 aircraft, 103 of them at night, more than the target of five enemy aircraft required for the title of ace."
    • I am not enamoured with the Summary of career section. Most (if not all) of its content has been expressed in prose in the article. I fail to see why there is a need for References in the Wehrmachtbericht sub-section either.
  • The main reason for breaking out the references in the Wehrmachtbericht is that I want to give the reader an easy overview and secondly because they are my personal translation of the original German text. Further the style I used here is copied from two other featured articles Heinrich Bär and Werner Mölders. I'd like to see how others feel about this MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A one-sentence Legacy section does not look good. Integrate the sentence into the Death sub-section. The same goes for the circumstances that surround Lent's medals in the Awards sub-section.
  • Agree, I combined the legacy section with the circumstances surrounding his awards. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be repetitive linking; Leutnant, Oberleutnant, and others seem to be linked at least three times in the main text.
    • Fraschka, Günther (1994) Knights of the Reich is not used.
    • Schaulen, Fritjof (2004) Eichenlaubträger 1940–1945 Zeitgeschichte in Farbe II Ihlefeld – Primozic is not used.
    • Scutts, Jerry (1998) German Night Fighter Aces of World War 2 is not used.
    • Williamson, Gordon (2006) Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients 1941–45 is not used.
    • (Add-on) The article is mostly based on the Hinchliffe source, and I wonder if the heavy emphasis might lead to a loss of certain aspects of the man. Williamson's Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients mentions that Lent "initially hated night flying and had to be persuaded against a transfer back to day fighters." This is interesting, yet the article does not speak of Lent's attitude to his work. Was it missed or was Williamson wrong? Spick seems to have expounded on Lent's attitude in Aces of the Reich. It also seems that Lent would have a friendly rival in night fighter kills in the form of Schnauffer (a former subordinate of Lent's), according to Constable and Toliver's Horrido!: Fighter aces of the Luftwaffe. It seems the article falls a bit short of comprehensiveness here. Jappalang (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point! This is an omission on my part. Peter Hinchliffe is the best and most thorough source I have come across. I added a paragraph indicating his initial reluctance to become a night fighter. Most other sources have condensed the information to the point of making it "untruthful". I therefore can only advise to follow Hinchliffe's reference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the "rivalry" between Schnauffer and Lent? Lent is supposed to be Nazi Germany's second highest-ranked night fighter pilot in terms of kills (behind Schnauffer). Is that notable to be of mention? If Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer is the world's top-scoring night fighter pilot (according to his article), does that not make Lent the second? Jappalang (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I read I wouldn't say that his ambition as a fighter pilot distinguished itself from that of others. The rivalry between Lent and Schnaufer, at least to my interpretation of the sources, does not excel to the point that I would want to mention it here. There were others, Sayn-Wittgenstein for instance, who were driven or even obsessed by the idea to be top scoring fighter pilot. But this is something to be addressed in his article not Lent's. MisterBee1966 (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was driving at the point that Lent's achievement is his status as the second highest ranking night fighter pilot (global or Germany only?). It seems a notable achievement (whether he wanted it or not), but is not mentioned in the article. If he and Schnauffer had a well-reported rivalry, it would flesh out more, but that does not seem the case now. Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, I added a sentence putting his achievement in context. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the the first of the sentences added might be redundant, and tweaked accordingly.[83] You might want to check my tweak and rewrite or revert it. Whether it requires the Williamson cite should also be checked. Note that if there are reliable sources who proclaim Lent as the "second highest scoring" night ace, then it should be made explicit in the article because right now, the article does not state if Lent is second, third, or fourth in such rankings. Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article's prose looks good to me at a cursory glance. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel Summary section is superfluous, and without in-depth knowledge of the subject, I am not certain if all sources have been covered. However, the current article is very comprehensive for a WWII pilot who died then, and I feel any other sources of information would likely not add so much that the current article can be thought of as failing WP:WIAFA 1b. So unless a substantial number opposes the Summary section with reason, my support is behind this article. Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dab links, and dates are consistent Day Month Year throughout—good. --an odd name 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing ref: Fraschka 1989. • Ling.Nut 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
I should qualify my support by mentioning that I contributed as a copy editor to this article, but not to its content. There may be an occasional prose hiccup, but there shouldn't be much. That said, I have a couple of comments to make:
first, I appreciated the editor's effort to maintain a fair and balanced pov throughout the article (and indeed, through the article's creation).
second, unlike one of the other reviewers (above), I liked the inclusion of the Wehrmachts Bericht section separate from the text. Yes, indeed, it could have been incorporated directly into the article, regardless of the fact that it is B's translation, and not a published one. But in other articles he has edited he has used the same format, so, for consistency's sake on this project, I think it belongs separately and, perhaps more importantly, it is primary source material, included separately to enhance the article.
third, Hinchcliffe, as a dominant source, seemed fair to me. A lot of articles rely on one or two sources as their "primary" (main) secondary source, especially when that source is the "go-to" source for the subject.

That said, it's a stylish and well-done article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WeakSupport

I think that the article is very well written, but I have a few concerns before I support. Additionally below are the things I did to check the article.

Lede -

  • Well written
    seems to be the proper length
    does a good job of summerizing the article
    Concern - It is typically frowned upon to have references in the lede. It appears that most of the references in the lede are also detailed later in the article so I would recommend removing them.

AWB Edits

  • I ran the article through AWB and didn't find anything significant there.

DAB links

  • There are no disambiguous links

Alt text

  • Alt text looks good, although a couple are rather long.

External links

  • There doesn't seem to be any significant problems here

Dates

  • The dates throughout the article appear consistent using the Day Month Year format.
    Concern - The dates in the References in the Wehrmachtbericht table under the summery of career section appear on more than one row. I would recommend using the DTS template to fix this allowing the entire date to be on one row.
done – interesting someone had changed this. I can only hope that it stays this way now.MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summery of career section

  • This section is were you lost me. I think this whole section needs to be cleanup up. The article otherwise is very well written but this section really pulls it down for me.
Could you please let me know what exactly you are referring to? This section has the same layout as the same section on Heinrich Bär and Werner Mölders articles, both at FA-Class. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these things good job. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my Comment to a weak support based on the evidence you proveded with the previously approved articles. I still do not like the layout of the Career section however and think that it should be cleaned up regardless of how the other articles appear. Basically I think that an article of this status shouldn't have what amounts to a series of bullets and should be rewritten to be in a more prose format. This also brings up an issue for me that has been a contentious topic to many and that is how to display military ribbons and badges. To me having a bunch of bullets doesn't provide the same information as a graphical display such as the one on Smedley Butler. Since some do not like the graphical display I think we should provide some kind of prose wording to better inform the reader about the information related to these military decorations. I served in the U.S. military and am knowledgable on that but I couldn't tell you a thing about these german ones. For example, what do the extra devices on the Cross for Swords and diamonds look like, are these ribbons displayed in order of how they would be displayed on the uniform or are they in chronological order, are they authorized to be worn as ribbons or are they medals only (which is a practice used by some militaries) when were they recieved, who gave it to him, are there any citations that can be added stating what he recieved them for (such as the Smedley Butler article (and I know that it is not quite to FA status yet either). Basically I just think that there is other information that can be provided to allow for a more readible and professional looking layout of the sectiom. Even if a graphical display is not used (which I personally think is a better but not everyone does). I hope this helps and good luck on getting it passed. --Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I would suggest scrapping the promotions section since it serves no real purpose for the article. Otherwise, ti does appear that everything is in order for the FA star. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support My comments have been satisfactorily addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could there be a conflict with Czechoslovakia in September 1938? Germany didn't occupy the Sudetenland until early October.
True! But pressure was applied before that so I changed the wording slightly to give a more preparation character. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankfurt on the Oder river This reads oddly. Why not use the contemporary name of Frankfurt an der Oder?
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This also reads oddly: During the prelude of World War II. How about "Before the start of World War II"?
I quite like it, but if this is a show stopper I will change it MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be changed; I can't quite articulate it, but it's not correct English.
Here's some more: Lent flew a further mission on 3 September and another on 4 September. At this point of the campaign, when the Polish Air Force was all but defeated, that the tactical use of Bf 110s switched from bomber escort to ground-attack.
Reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a link for the He 111?
Its first occurrence in the article is linked in section “World War II”. I thought that over-linking should be avoided.

MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I missed the first link.
For his actions in the Polish campaign Lent was awarded one of the first Iron Cross 2nd class on 21 September 1939 of World War II. Wouldn't it read better if the date was given after the bit about one of the first EKIIs of WW2?
Indeed, now fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I./ZG 76 relocated to Stuttgart area isn't there a missing 'the' here?
You are right. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Helmut Lent was ordered to intercept and engage the attacking bomber force and after refuelling—Lent had just landed at Jever from an armed patrol—claimed three more Wellingtons When did he shoot down the first ones?
Good spot, they were his first, I remove 'more' MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Define 'heavies'
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Define 'Nachtjagdstaffel'
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care about the promotion section; just so long as they're integrated into the main body, which I believe they are.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a severe problem here with missing WP:NBSPs, causing many of the words and terms to wrap on my screen: please fix, I left samples. Also, it would be good if the article could try to stick to one convention on translations: some use the German word with English translation in English, others use the English word with translation in German, and others have no translation. These won't hold up promotion, but I hope they will be addressed soon, and not repeate on MilHist articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [84].

Supernatural (season 2) edit

Nominator(s): Ωphois 16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because three different copy-edits have been done since previous nomination (by myself, Airplaneman, and ATC), and I feel everything is up to FA standards. Ωphois 16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Nicely written, I think it meets FAC criteria. ATC . Talk 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning support: A nicely written, comprehensive article. Nice work. The Flash {talk} 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC) There's still some continuing issues from the last FAC that I brought up that need to be fixed:[reply]
  • In the lead, the info about the change to The CW could be improved a bit. Explain how it used to be on the WB.
Changed to: 'It was the first season to air on the CW television network, a joint venture of The WB and UPN; the previous was broadcast on The WB." Ωphois 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the description for "Playthings," move the actress who plays Maggie up to after the character's first mention
Done. Ωphois 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in "Writing:" "Some storylines originated from ideas that writers could not[...]" -> "[...]ideas that the writers[...]"
Done. Ωphois 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Reception:" "He also found "Nightshifter" to the "best action[...]"" -. "to be the "best action[...]""
Done. Ωphois 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Flash {talk} 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Solid article which (I think) definitely meets FA criteria. Airplaneman talk 06:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I either supported or was close to doing so last time round. Anyhow, looks good now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice little article.

"and attempt to discover what the demon's plan is for Sam and other psychic children like him." - Maybe "and attempt to discover the demon's plan for Sam and other psychic children like him."

Done. Ωphois 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "season" is used 3, 3, and 2 times in the fist three paragraphs. A bit too much. "Casting" is 3, 6, 2. "Writing" uses the word a ton early on. "Reception" is 4, 8, 1. "DVD Release" has 7 of them.

I'll work on the production and reception section. I managed to remove one from the lead, but their is no other word I know of that is synonymous with "season", so I can't think of any other way of phrasing it in the lead. Ωphois 20:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same with the other sections. "Season" is mainly used as an adjective, so I don't know of any other way of having it. Ωphois 20:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It averaged about 3.14 million American viewers, and was in danger of being canceled." - This isn't clear to me. Was it going to be not renewed? Canceled half way through?

Changed to "in danger of not being renewed". Ωphois 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The cast and crew gained many award nominations" - "gained" is awkward.

Changed to: "The cast and crew received many award nominations, but the season garnered mixed reviews from critics." Ωphois 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"While both the brotherly chemistry between the lead actors and the decision to finish the main storyline at the season's end were praised, the formulaic structure of the episodes was criticized." - Was this by the critics? If so, say that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous sentence notes the mixed reviews from critics, so to me it would seem repetitive. Ωphois 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In exchange for saving Dean's life, he will give up his own life, his immortal soul, and the mystical Colt." - Might be good to say what the mystical Colt is.

Done. Ωphois 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As the genius Ash (Chad Lindberg) attempts to analyze John's research on Azazel with his computer" - Maybe "As the bar's resident genius Ash (Chad Lindberg) attempts to analyze John's research on Azazel with his computer"

Done. Ωphois 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dean later takes out his anger over his father's death on the Impala. " - Might be good to explain what the Impala is.

Wikilinked to it's entry on main page. Is that okay? Ωphois 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"was executed and buried on the location where the apartment building was later built." - "at the location" maybe? Not sure.

I think "on" works better. Ωphois 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This makes Sam realize that the woman's spirit" - "Sam realizes that the woman's spirit"

Done. Ωphois 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to remove the word "actually" in episodes 7 and 8. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from episode 8, but I think it works better with it in episode 7. Ωphois 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"leading Sam to believe his father's belief of Croatoan being a demonic plague." - Maybe "father's theory"

Done. Ωphois 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it contacts someone to inform him that Sam was immune to the virus. " - Maybe "is immune"

Done. Ωphois 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a single mother, who plans to sell it." - Not sure the commas is needed.

Done. Ωphois 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"and a metal pipe on the truck falls and impales him to death," - "to death" probably not needed.

Done. Ωphois 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"He then visits Jo at her job and begins sadistically toying with her head," - Sounds like her head is not attached to her body. Maybe "playing mind games" or something.

Done. Ωphois 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sam shoots Dean and flees to Bobby." - "flees to Bobby's" maybe. Also, should say who Bobby is, since it's the first mention. (Who Bobby is is in the next episode)

Done. Ωphois 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"and Bobby learns that the demon used a binding ritual to bind itself into Sam's body" - "and Bobby learns that the demon used a binding ritual to bind itself to Sam's body"

Done. Ωphois 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it reveals that it is the same demon which formerly resided within Meg Masters." - First mentino of Meg. Might want to say who she is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a wikilink work? Meg herself is just a shell until the fourth season, so explaining who she is wouldn't really work IMO. Ωphois 22:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They salt and burn several bodies. You might want to explain why in the first instance. They also use salt as protection several times. Might want to explain that as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the first instance that salt is a deterrent of ghosts, so I think that also covers the "salt and burn" instances since they involve ghosts. Ωphois 22:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADR (Automated dialogue replacement) should be fully spelled out, I think.

Since it's wiki-linked, I personally don't think it's necessary. Ωphois 22:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to find another word for "season". Sometimes you can use "it". "When production of the second season started, Kripke wanted to avoid the monster-of-the-week formula used in the first season." could use "the previous year" for the second instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made these changes. Ωphois 22:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADR should be spelled out per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)

Done. Ωphois 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"but decided against it because he did not have knowledge of production details." - Maybe "but decided against it because he did not have production knowledge."

Done. Ωphois 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"and decided to have production look like "goofballs"" - "the production"? What is goofballs? The production crew look like goofballs?

Changed to "the production staff" Ωphois 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The plot, which apparently "fell into place" during the writing process, " - Why was it "apparently"?

Removed it. Ωphois 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"hallucinates that she is mental patient" - "a mental"?

Done. Ωphois 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the writers would have to devise a way for Sam and Dean to escape in the end." - "the writers had to devise a way for Sam and Dean to escape in the end."?

That element was changed during development, so the writers never had to devise it. Ωphois 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" which Kripke feels ended up improving the episode" - "felt"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ωphois 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for image concerns (criteria 3):

  • File:Werewolf3.jpg: fails WP:NFCC #1 and 8; text perfectly serves to describe the differences (more like a vampire than traditional werewolves, eyes change color and fangs grow out of teeth, or such). Werewolf mention also seems a bit light (primary source intent, one secondary source comment)
  • File:Croatoan.jpg: source, author, date of first publishing (and/or creation) required to verify if this image's declared license is true
  • File:Supernatural S2 DVD.jpg: "To illustrate a DVD release of the full season discussed, and identify the season in the article." is a bit weak. Suggest buffing up the rationale on why the DVD cover is a good fair-use image on critical grounds.
    I have refined the FUR.[85] Jappalang (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data of "free" image is non-verifiable (WP:IUP#Requirements), one non-free image seems to be untenable with NFCC, and one could do with improvement. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm fine with getting rid of the werewolf image, and I'm working on the Croatoan image. The most I can find right now is that Corbis-Bettmann appears to have it in its archives.
      • I got rid of both images, and replaced the Croatoan picture with a quotation about a different episode. Ωphois 07:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also added in a photo to the Casting section. Ωphois 07:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you suggest for the infobox image rationale? Ωphois 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would "To depict the subject matter, as well as the series leads"? Ωphois 04:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • DVD cover's FUR has been refined, Croatoan.jpg and Werewolf3.jpg were removed. Latest image (of Amber Benson) is appropriately licensed. Withdrawing image opposition. Jappalang (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now by Karanacs. Overall, I found this an engaging and well-written article, but there were some areas that I got completely bogged down in. I've never seen this show, and I haven't read anything else about it. The article body opens with the episode list, and I was totally confused. I highly recommend a background or overview section that would summarize the first season very briefly.

    • I think that just elaborating on the car wreck would suffice. What do you think? Ωphois 18:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're the expert on the series - I still haven't read the article for Season 1, so I don't know what other connections I might be missing. Karanacs (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only first season things that would affect the Episodes section are the mother's death, Azazel, the Colt, the psychic children, and the car wreck. I've elaborated on the first four, so I think adding a little bit about the wreck will cover it. Ωphois 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first episode mentions lots of characters, but doesn't tell me who they are. Nowhere does it mention that John is Sam's father - this can only be found in an easter egg link in the lead (or, as I see now, later in the episode list - but by then I'm already confused). Who (or what) is Azazel?
  • Subsequent episode descriptions have a lot of links (very good), but I would have to click each of them to figure out what is going on (a Rakshasa?...isn't an Impala a car...can't we just say on the car?)
  • What significance do dead plants over a grave have? (ep 26)...The first sentence doesn't seem to me to provide much useful information at all.
  • episode 27 -
    • how did their mother die? it's alluded to, but not stated.
    • "although the man still ends up killing himself" - which man? the intended murder victim or the guy who originally intended to commit suicide?
      • It says "the man still ends up killing himself". It was to be a murder-suicide. They stopped the murder, but not the suicide. Ωphois 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do they want to track down someone whose mother died in a similar manner?
    • "after learning that he was adopted..." who is "he" referring to?
    • again, a mention of Azazel, and I don't know who that is
    • "Ash reveals that Ansem's adoptive mother did not die when he was an infant, meaning not every psychic child follows a traceable pattern" - huh? there's a pattern? who else did this happen to?
      • A season one character. The wikilink elaborates. Ωphois 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • is this trying to say that Ansen is the one convincing people to commit suicide and Andy didn't have anything to do with it?
      • Yes. Changed sentence to: "However, Sam has another vision of a woman's suicide, and it comes to pass while they are talking to Andy, exonerating him." Ωphois 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ep 29
    • "Dean's previous record coming back to haunt him. " - what did he do?
    • "To put the spirit to rest, they must burn her body, but the woman appears " - I don't understand the "but" here....
      • They need her body to stop her, but she leads them to it. Ωphois 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • whose wife did Pete kill...that of the lawyer or that of Pete?
      • It's established in the first sentence of the summary. Ωphois 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sam is referred to as a "child" more than once - how old is he supposed to be?
    • Per earlier correction, elaborated on "psychic children" in the lead. Ωphois 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ep 32
    • " Despite this, his findings helps the brothers to realize " -- despite what? I think the article means..."The brothers instead realize that a shapeshifter..."
      • His research is based on the theory that it's a "mandroid", but they are still able to figure out the truth. Ωphois 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "With his findings, the brothers instead realize that a shapeshifter is behind it all." Ωphois 18:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not happy with the writing section. At times it reads like a big list of "this episode did this, and that episode did that, and the next episode did...". This leads to paragraphs that seem to jam several different ideas together, breaking up the flow. Is there a way to draw out any of the larger themes as topic sentences and restructure the section so that a paragraph has a particular broader topic, which may discuss several episodes that involved that topic? If you keep the current episode-centric structure, I recommend that you split some of the larger paragraphs so that we have a single paragraph about each episode.
    • They already are broken up into different themes: previously unused ideas, simple concepts, influences by popular culture, and deviations in the writing process. Ωphois 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to construct an overall themes section for the article? Generally, a lot can be found analyzing popular science fiction shows. Is this one popular enough to have generated anything looking at what is going on in this season? Themes of family, or ....??

Karanacs (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Overall themes are addressed in the first paragraph of the writing section. Anything else would be OR. Ωphois 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was able find an interview in which he says the psychic children were another main storyline, so I added it to the first paragraph. Ωphois 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Excellent work on making the episode list more accessible! I was interested enough to read the summaries of the other seasons and may actually start watching this now. I unfortunately don't have the time to review the Writing section right now, but I would not have opposed on that basis alone. Karanacs (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On sources What makes these reliable?

I'm not impressed with some of these pop articles that come at FAC with sources like these. Do people know that trade publications (or even a basic Google Archive search) exist?

    • A lot of information is not available in trade publications, though I have found some in magazines. As for Google Archive, that is actually how I found a lot of the sources used (including the sources you questioned above). Ωphois 23:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two methods of citing authors' names. Pick one and stick to it.
    • What do you mean? Ωphois 16:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • i.e. Tom Jones OR Jones, Tom RB88 (T) 21:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Online refs do not need italics (unless you choose to cite the print publication of the website). Also add italics to print refs.
  • Some refs have both work and publisher. Remove one in these for uniformity with the rest.

RB88 (T) 15:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs need a bit of work. Print publications (newspapers, magazines, etc.) are italicized; I saw a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ref and Chicago Tribune ref that needed this done, but please check throughout. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are websites, not print. Ωphois 23:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Underwhelmed; one of the weakest FACs over recent months if it's promoted. But I won't stand in the way.

  • Why is "United States" linked, in the infobox?
    • Why wouldn't it be? Ωphois 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it's not a useful target to divert to, and because WP:LINK says it's not normally linked. Tony (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Ωphois 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mother" and "father" pipes: no one will click on them. Why not make them consistent with Sam, Dean etc a second previously?
  • Why is "box" linked? And "retailers"?
    • Fixed "box". "Digital retailers" is linked so people unfamiliar with it can view it. Ωphois 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Digital retailer" seems pretty obvious to me. Tony (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to discover the demon's plan for Sam and other psychic children—young adults who were visited by Azazel as infants and given abilities, often having their mother then die in a fire—like him." Erk. Can the last two words be before the first dash?
    • No, as it would not make sense in that order. Ωphois 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll remove "like him". Ωphois 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • —saving ... could that be a comma instead?
    • No, it is supposed to be an mdash, per the previous nomination. Ωphois 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it the network or the season that was the first venture?
    • The network. Ωphois 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So was that fixed?
  • "the previous was broadcast on The WB"—the previous what?
  • "It averaged about 3.14 million American viewers, and the series was in danger of not being renewed." Logic: "only about".
    • That would be biased, as we don't know if that is considered low-ratings by the network. Ωphois 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why the "but"? That was the source of my concern.
        • Where is there a "but"? Ωphois 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anyways, I changed it to "only about", as a source says it was "on the bubble". Ωphois 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "internationally syndicated" link target is pretty feeble. Do we need it?
    • For people who don't understand what international syndication is. Ωphois 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like a dictionary word to me: WP is not a dictionary, and the readers are meant to be able to speak English.
  • "the amount of American viewers"—number of.
  • "serial killer" is linked. Why?
    • So people can better understand the topic of serial killers, one of which is the villain of the episode. Ωphois 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What in particular in the "Serial killer" article is useful for readers of this topic to know? Tony (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone further. The start suggests that the whole thing needs an independent copy-edit. Tony (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • It has already been copy-edited by two other people. Mostly everything you've listed are minor or nit-picks, so another copy-edit isn't really needed. I'll take care of the other ones either tonight or tomorrow. Ωphois 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS "the writers desired to flesh out the concept of hunters." ... Plain English, please. Tony (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done. Ωphois 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't give a dump how many times it's been copy-edited. It needs more, preferably by someone who is unfamiliar with the text. Throughout. Tony (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The majority of your concerns pertain to the lead, which is a summary of the entire article and thus would be the place for issues like those because it's summarizing a lot of plot detail into a few sentences. It would take me a couple of minutes to look through the rest for overlinking, so I think I can fix any other issues. Ωphois 18:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone through and removed unnecessary links. Ωphois 18:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check:

  • "are taken to a hospital in Memphis following a car wreck"—sounds as though they follow the wreck to the hospital. "following a car accident"?
    • I don't see how that changes anything other than the context of what happened. I think wreck is more appropriate, as the car was totaled. To me, "accident" seems minor. Ωphois 03:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "make it out of the crash with only minor injuries, a dying Dean (Ackles) is in a coma"—probably drop "only". Comma before "who".
  • "and offers to make a deal. In exchange for saving Dean's life, he will"—replace stop with colon.
  • "Dean later takes out his anger over his father's death on"—probably drop the temporal tags such as "later" and "then" when it's clearly a narrative. (There are other instances, too.) "anger at" is more usual.
    • I think the temporal tags are appropriate for flow reasons. Changed to "at". Ωphois 03:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sam and Dean dig up her grave, and find the coffin empty."

Probably remove comma for a smoother read.

  • "and reveals that he has had trouble coping with the guilt he feels over their father's death". I'd remove "that" and consider "with his guilt over ...". I've withdrawn my strong oppose, but I believe this is not an example of WP's best work. Tony (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:13, 25 January 2010 [86].

A Rugrats Chanukah edit

Nominator(s): The Flash {talk} 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fully meets the criteria for an FA. Almost all sources are offline, media resources, so I doubt there are any questions on reliability, and it has undergone a copyedit, so the prose should be coherent. The production section might be seemed as lacking, as there are only two paragraphs, but I assure you it is all the info available, and should be acceptable. Note that I have another FAC opened for Dan Povenmire, so please alert me if I need to hold off on this FAC until that one closes. The Flash {talk} 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and forgot to mention, it is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed. The Flash {talk} 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full review coming at some point, but I noticed that every paragraph of the lead begins the same. Mm40 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the second paragraph to begin with "The episode[...]" The Flash {talk} 02:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name—I was asked to look this over. I'm a bit concerned with ref formatting.

  • No dab links or dead external links (I hate having to click through Flash just to view text, but that's Klasky-Csupo's fault, not yours).
  • Speaking of Klasky-Csupo, though, why are they used in the "work" parameter of the flash ref? They're a publisher, not a book or journal title. Same with Viacom and Knight-Ridder, and the inverse for The New Yorker (which is definitely a work title). Check for these problems throughout.
  • Done. Note that Knight Ridder is a newspaper, so it is a published work that needs to be italicized. The Flash {talk} 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure Knight Ridder is a newspaper and not a newspaper company? Knight Ridder does not list a newspaper with that name, and I've yet to find a Web page or any source online that even mentions a paper by that name. I want evidence (a cover scan, third-party source, etc.) because I smell fish. --an odd name 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, correct you are. The source I was reading this from put it as "Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service," which I did not realize then simply meant it was the Tribune News Service, as published by Knight Ridder. Fixed. :) The Flash {talk} 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that's not a newspaper either, just a company. What is the "source [you were] reading this from" anyway? If it's really reliable, I see nothing to hide, and if you can't find it outside of some quote on a fan site you want to keep secret, remove it. --an odd name 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's called Encyclopedia.com, which collects samples from thousands of newspapers and other publications from across the nation. Like LexisNexis, but free. I've changed it to publisher. The Flash {talk} 20:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 04:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Again, asked to check.) The few full web links check out, and nothing else seems weird about it, so I might as well. A few more things:

  • I would add the links to the refs' Encyclopedia.com pages—if not for verification, then at least to say where I saw them or to say "these sources do exist and here's the place I got them". Though if you think that would just be advertising or spam then whatever.
  • I don't really think it would be spam or anything, but a lot of the reception bits are things that I've read from the search results that show bits and pieces of the article, not the actual article—while it shows the article for a few paragraphs, you need a free membership (which I don't have) to view the whole thing. Like I said: LexisNexis but free. The Flash {talk} 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " TV Guide later wrote that "Nickelodeon's Rugrats secured its place in television history" with the episode, voiding that it could "entertain a child of any religious denomination" "—I'm not sure I've ever seen that word used to mean "noting" or "saying". Not that I'm a frequent English reader or such.
  • "Unlike Hecht's initial response, Nickelodeon agreed with the claims and apologized, promising never to run the character nor the strip again."—maybe change to "Unlike Hecht, Nickelodeon's new president Herb Scannell agreed with the claims and apologized, promising never to run the character nor the strip again.", since "Hecht's initial response" and "Nickelodeon" don't seem comparable. Perhaps "new" is not the right word; tweak to taste.

Otherwise, I've nothing else. --an odd name 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. :) The Flash {talk} 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Unfortunate repetition of information right at the top: "is a special season-four episode of the animated television series Rugrats. It is the first episode of the show's fourth season".
  • "Meany of Chanukah." Dot goes after the closing punctuation. See MoS. There are others to fix, too.
  • "is to play", rather than "will play" (do you agree?).
  • Yeah, I couldn't find it, but it appears to have been taken care of already (?) The Flash {talk} 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way of preventing the wrap-over of the three citation numbers after Passover"?
  • 1996 link looks like a useless plain year link. Why not make it black and put the explicit, unpiped link in the "See also" section? Readers are more likely to click on it there.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 15:06, December 14, 2009

  • I'd never realised that citation numbers would slip down to the following line if you caught them with just the wrong window size (= column width). That's what I did, unwittingly. This is a Bugzilla report in the making, since it shouldn't happen, don't you agree? Not an FAC issue. Sandy, does it worry you?
  • Fourth season rep is fixed; thanks. I removed the television series link, the middle of three adjacent blue items. WP:LINK says to try to avoid it, and let's face it, TV series is hardly something that needs explanation. Tony (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes this reliable?

  • http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/12132/rugrats-holiday-celebration/
    • It's DVD Talk. Read about it on the wikipedia article, which itself contains info on why it asserts reliability. The Washington Post (Washington Post), the Sare Tribune (Star Tribune), and Indie Wire (Indie Wire) have all cited it. It was even founded by Geoffrey Kleinman, author, journalist, and radio personality. The Flash {talk} 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll leave this for editors to decide for themselves. For the record, I lean slightly reliable. But the first two references merely mention what users of DVD Talk and its community do and think. The last reference is the only one to cite its review content. RB88 (T) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really cannot fathom why you doubt it's relability, and strongly urge you to change your mind. If you read it's article, you'll see dozens of reasons why it's totally reliability. Nothing in it is written by users. Give me one good reason why a site which is cited in news outlets (Indie Wire it totally a reliable sort, as are the other two which mention it is a credible place for DVD reviews) and is founded by a published author and journalist is unreliable. Again, it is not even close to being a "community website" and I am—truthfully—quite surprised that you doubt it (both here and all other FACs I've seen you reviewed and doubt it). Once more, please reconsider. The Flash {talk} 01:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've rephrased my statement above after more research. I still think editors need to decide for themselves. Also, don't use bold lettering in normal statements as it may confuse the FAC leaders when they check for comments, supports, and objects. Good luck with the rest of the nomination and I'm always here for source checks when you're writing other articles. Just drop a line. RB88 (T) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to use the publishing locations in the reflist, then either do it for all citations or none. Your call.
  • The reason not all use the locations field is that the info is unknown. There's no policy against using it for certain refs, correct? The Flash {talk} 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • References need uniformity, be that with date conventions, order of information, or bits of info. As I said, if you can't find the locations for all, then remove the ones you have cited already. RB88 (T) 00:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 18:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "It is the first of the show's fourth season and the sixty-sixth overall." First what? Episode? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I think Tony was referring to the repetition of "fourth season" and "season-four" that existed before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony did actually say that the change was fine, but I've gone ahead and added "episode" to the sentence. The Flash {talk} 18:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments as promised from Mm40 (talk · contribs)

Lead
  • I guess all the spellings of Hanukkah should math the title
  • I would add "the Jewish holiday of" before Hanukkah to free up links in the next section (see below)
  • Repetition of "on" in the first sentence of the last paragraph; I suggest "Nickelodeon originally broadcast the episode on December 4, 1996" or something similar
  • "and his wife Minka, also attracted controversy, when the" I think neither comma should be there
Plot summary
  • "they are the people featured in the story" can be reworded "they are the story's characters" of "they are the characters" or something
  • How about linking "Jewish kingdom" to Judea?
  • "through miraculous circumstances" can simply be "miraculously"
Production
  • "began finishing up production" can be "finished production"
  • "was eventually pushed back" why is "eventually" necessary?
  • Is there any info on when in 1998 it was released?
  • "holiday-themed episodes of Rugrats, and included" can either be
  • Fixed it myself. Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and featured illustrations by Barry Goldberg" isn't really needed if Goldberg isn't particularly notable
Release and reception
  • "December 4, 1996, on Nickelodeon" no comma needed after "1996"
  • "8:30 p.m." should have a non-breaking space and "time" should be capitalized in "Eastern time"
  • Done with the "time" thing, but what do you mean about the non-breaking space? The Flash {talk} 17:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NBSP; MoS thing. I've added it myself but you may want to get familiar as FAC folks are picky about 'em. Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the second mention of ADL have "the" before it? Not sure
Other
  • "A Rugrats Passover" shouldn't be under See also because it's already linked to in the main text

The article does great justice to the show; I'll happily support when these issues are fixed. By any chance, is "A Rugrats Passover" next? Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure if the Passover special is ready just yet, but after some cleanup and maybe some better sources I'll probably hitch her up for FAC. :) The Flash {talk} 17:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does show up here, you can be sure the see my review. I've replied to you a couple of times above. Thanks for your work, Mm40 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem; thanks yourself for the support. :) The Flash {talk} 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: article uses a single copyrighted image with qualified fair use rationale.[87] No issue. Jappalang (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Prose looks solid. ceranthor 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pickles family fear that Boris's bitter rivalry with Schlomo will ruin the play. - family is singular, so the family fears
  • If possible, could you expand the controversy section?
  • Sorry, but that's all the information available; there is the official press statement, but it itself isn't much more then what the section already says, plus it's focused on the 1998 controversy. The Flash {talk} 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asked to revisit. Full prose support. ceranthor 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Ok, this subject area is completely outside my normal purview, but I'll give it a try. You have here the perspective of someone who's never seen the show, and barely knows what the Rugrats are. As such, I will mostly be evaluating prose. Sasata (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and referred to alternatively as "Rugrats Chanukah Special," missing "the", no?
  • Nope, that's how they refer to it in all the magazines and books I've looked through. The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a special episode of the animated television series Rugrats." Is "special" TV lingo? What's special about it?
Thanks for linking special. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"The plot involves a visit by the babies," what babies? Rugrat babies?

*"The episode was written by J. David Stem and David N. Weiss and directed by Raymie Muzquiz." How about a comma after Weiss?

Plot summary

  • "On Chanukah, Grandma Minkus reads a book" why does Grandpa Boris get a bluelink but not Grandma Minkus?
  • "Upon arrival they discover that there is only enough olive oil" Confused here, who is arriving where? Does "they" refer to the Maccabees or the Rugrats?
  • The Maccabees. I'm unsure how its confusing, there's only a mention of the Rugrats once in the para. and following that it just mentions Judah and the Maccabees.... The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, I haven't seen the show. The paragraph starts out by saying the rugrats pretend they are the story's characters. The next three sentences talk about the adventures of Judah and his army, and I presume from the second sentence that Judah is Tommy. So when I get to the fifth sentence which says "Upon their arrival they discover" I just not sure if the "they" means the rugrats, the Maccabees, or the Rugrats pretending they are Maccabees. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if I can make it clearer in the summary, but here's a bit of an explanation: as with several television programs, this episodes features someone telling a story. The story is shown, and—for both representation and comedic purposes—the main characters' appearances are used to represent the characters featured. Therefore, "they" is referring to to Maccabees, whose appearance is based on that of the main characters. Does that clarify it? The Flash {talk} 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does when you explain it, but it's still not quite clear from just reading the text. I'll chalk it up to my own neurological dysfunctions and strike the issue. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Pickles family fears…" This is the first mention of the Pickles family… who are they?

Production

  • "Paul Germain, co-creator of Rugrats, responded by suggesting a Passover special instead, describing it as a "funny idea"[3] and was considered to be of "historical interest." Does not parse, verb tenses not in agreement
  • "responded by suggesting"... "describing it as"... "and was considered to be" Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite. How about just removing the unnecessary words "was considered to be", I think it would read fine after that. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I do that it'll be even more ridged and read "Paul Germain, co-creator of Rugrats, responded with the concept of a Passover special instead, as a 'funny idea'" The Flash {talk} 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1996, the crew successfully produced the Passover special" Is this "crew" the writer/director combo mentioned in the lead? Also, what was successful about their production? Is it possible to unsuccessfully produce a tv show?
  • And, no, its the crew that it clearly mentions just a few sentences above... And they successfully produced it, I'm not entirely sure how much clearer it can get. Actually, yes, it is possible to "unsuccessfully produce a tv show;" production faults could lead to the idea being scraped all together midproduction, something which has occurred several times throughout television history. The Flash {talk} 16:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok the problem is then, the "crew" is mentioned in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, but I have no idea who they are. Is crew short for production crew? Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you put "production crew" in the article to help out Luddites like me? Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. David Stem - I think there should be non-breaking spaces after initials like this to prevent unsightly line wraps
  • Depending on the width of your browser, the sentence might read like so: "J. David Stem and David N." (line break) "Weiss collaborated to write the script..." See what I mean? Sasata (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still do not, actually. What should I do to fix it, nonetheless? The Flash {talk} 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out the initial, put non-breaking spaces between the initials, or use a {{nowrap}} template around the name. It's not really a big deal though, just tweaking. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • books should have publisher locations, no?
  • It's not necessary, no, nor is it always available info. The Flash {talk} 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox image caption shouldn't have period at the end (it's a sentence fragment)

Support on prose. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm finding too many small issues here, indicating more strenuous review might be needed. See my edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read through your summaries, and, as you noted, they are all minor. You only note that you think it needs reviewing, so if you believe so, it would be best if you point them out. As above, consensus is leading to a support, but if you believe there are concerns that need fixing for it to pass its FAC, please state so and perhaps directly state which bits need to be fixed. The Flash {talk} 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewers aren't expected to list every problem. Anyway, here are a few things:
  • "the episode and others featuring Grandpa Boris and his wife Minka also attracted controversy" "also" is unnecessary here.
  • "The babies listen and pretend that they are the story's characters." "pretend" is vague here. Did they actually enact the story themselves or just imagine themselves in it?
  • "The Pickles, a functional, American family, fears that Boris's bitter" Basic subject-verb agreement problem here.
  • I think that it should be "The Pickles ... fear". However, I will ask Tony1, a grammar expert, to be sure.
  • "Once production closed on "A Rugrats Passover"" Perhaps "concluded" is a better verb?
  • "in the Kids 2–11 demographic" Why is "Kids" capitalized?
  • In ratings info, the demographic is always capitalized. I believe it asserts it as a proper noun in the situation. The Flash {talk} 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite a source or Wikipedia guideline for this? You may be right, but it's impossible to tell by looking at existing FA articles for this. For example, from "Confirmed Dead": "The episode received a 6.5/16 in the key adults 18–49 demographic." Another, from "No Such Thing as Vampires": ""No Such Thing as Vampires" finished first among total viewers and adults 18–49 for its night." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "himself Jewish, professed himself dumbfounded by the criticism" "himself ... himself" repetition is jarring.
  • "by the character reciting" --> "by the character's reciting" or "by the character's recitation of"
  • I didn't read closely enough to decide whether this is FA level; these are issues I saw on a quick skim. However, quite a few of the issues I saw above demonstrate that the article has not quite attained the level of polish that FAs are expected to have. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else done. I'm also unsure how these (what seem to be) minor issues can draw away from its FA quality. The Flash {talk} 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I just looked at the Release and reception section and found a surprising number of problems for something that's been listed for so long. The scope of the issues suggests a thorough, independent copyedit (meaning, someone new to the text) is needed, with an eye toward details, MoS, repetition in prose, and plain errors. It appears to be a good way off the mark. Examples follow:
    • "Multiple repeats of the episode continue to air" Is a multiple repeat more than a repeat? Simpler yet, "The episode continued to air"
    • Quite a bit of repetition in the text. For example, consecutively: "TV Guide later wrote that", "Ted Cox ... commented that", "DVD Talk reviewer Francis Rizzo III wrote that", "Michael Atkinson and Laurel Shifrin wrote ... that"
      • I'm not sure how you wish me to fix it. Any ideas? The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "opting that it could 'entertain a child of any religious denomination'" Opting? Do you mean "opining"?
    • "'A Rugrats Chanukah', along with other Rugrats episodes which featured Boris and his wife Minka as characters" What is the phrase "as characters" telling us that's not already told? If you insist, why not "which featured characters Boris and his wife Minka"?
    • Don't provide acronyms for terms that are never used again (ADL).
      • You're inaccurate there; it is called "ADL" later. Check again. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nickelodeon's then-president" To my eyes, it's quite ugly to have the apostrophe-s unlinked and the rest of it linked. Nickelodeon is thrice-linked; why?
      • Dunno, must've been a accident. Fixed (and it was only linked twice) The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason for the single subheading under the Reception section? It's better practice to have two or more subheadings where we use them, unless there is a compelling reason to have one. I don't see how the content in that section warrants its own heading.
      • I have split up the reception section. It is significant as it is the only negative response to the episode. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has already undergone a thorough copyedit from an independent copyeditor, so I'm not sure how more of the same thing will fix it. The Flash {talk} 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if we're still finding basic problems, I would say the copyedit was not sufficient and you need to get someone else. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem there is CEG might as well be dead—backlog goes back almost to 2008 on their request page, and I do not know anyone else who would be able to copyedit. Do you have any recommendations? And I was referring to your comments, lol. The Flash {talk} 03:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asking what copyeditor you are referring to. As to who: I would look for interested parties in your subject area. Fish for expert editors in the television and television-show projects. There are plenty of them who have brought TV articles up to FA status. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I haven't re-read since Steve's edits—I will do so tonight. Perhaps the problems are already resolved. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caveat: I didn't have a lot of time, but I think the more obvious stuff has been caught, enough that anything remaining should be minor enough to be easily cleaned up. Steve T • C 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stricken my opposition based on the recent improvements. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Struck oppose, from Steve T • C I'm sorry, but reading the lead alone revealed several problems straight away with the prose, and one factual error:
    • The alt text for the infobox image was ungrammatical and contained irrelevant details, such as colours (alt text is primarily aimed at those who cannot see).
    • "A Rugrats Chanukah", titled onscreen as simply "Chanukah" and referred to alternatively as the "Rugrats Chanukah Special"—unnecessarily wordy for an opening sentence. The "simply" is editor commentary and can go (don't tell your readers what to think) and "referred to alternatively as" can be rendered more concisely as "sometimes called", don't you think?
    • Overlinking; I think most people will be aware of the concept of "animation".
      • Where exactly was that? Which links do you believe are unneeded? The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's OK, I got rid of that one; I'm unsure that television special needs a link, but it's borderline and won't lose any sleep if it's kept. :-) Steve T • C
    • The plot description: "The plot involves a visit by the Rugrats, accompanied by Grandpa Boris, to a synagogue. While there, they ..."—again, wordy, not snappy, a bit twisty. Just removing a few words and a couple of commas makes it flow better and doesn't change any of the intended meaning.
      • I'm unsure was words I chip off there. That bit reads quite clearly to be, so I can't find any words that pop put as needing to be omitted. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My amendment reads, "Its plot tells of a visit by the Rugrats and Grandpa Boris to a synagogue, where they ..."—this conveys the same information in a lot less space. Steve T • C
    • At this stage, after this long at FAC, a basic fact such as the production and air date of the Passover special should not be wrong. A glance at the article history reveals it's always been this way; all the sources (save the IMDb) say that episode was produced and broadcast in 1995. This was easily spotted, too, as the timeline in the context of the Chanukah special's production didn't ring true.
      • Thanks for fixing it, but please be aware it was a simple mistake. I did not spot it, but it was merely a minor typo of sorts and (IMHO) isn't particularly a huge factual error. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Accepted, though you should make sure it doesn't appear anywhere in the article body too. Steve T • C
    • "The idea of making a Rugrats Chanukah special was pitched to the production crew in 1992"—pitched by whom? The question is immediately begged, more so in this case because it's a production crew (the director or writers, etc.) who usually do the pitching. Switching to active voice ("Nickelodeon executives pitched the idea of a Rugrats Chanukah special to the production crew in 1992") immediately improves how it reads as well as giving the reader information they didn't have before, all in the exact same number of words.
    • Some redundancies in that paragraph too.
      • Came you name some to get me started? The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I eliminated them, but take it as an example of what could be looked at in the rest of the text; have you ever looked at Tony1's guide? I owe almost all the improvements to my own writing over the last couple of years to that document. Steve T • C
          • Thanks once more; I'll definitely need to give that guide a look-see soon. The Flash {talk} 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "completing it soon afterwards"—one I haven't changed, as I couldn't work out what to change it to. It doesn't really tell us anything. It's the equivalent of a story that begins, "They set off for the castle; when they got there ..." Nothing is told to us about the journey. Of course they completed it "soon afterwards", else there wouldn't be an episode. :-)
      • lol, Indeed, you're right there. I've removed the "soon afterwords" part. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nickelodeon originally broadcast "A Rugrats Chanukah" on December 4, 1996, receiving a Nielsen Rating of 7.9"—while an argument could be made that the network gets the rating, it's more idiomatic to say the episode does.
    • "In spite of this positive reception, the episode and others featuring Grandpa Boris and his wife Minka attracted controversy ..."—it's not in spite of, or despite, the positive reception, it's simply in addition to. Per WP:AVOID, such words "can sometimes imply that one alternative is less favored than another". In short, the article is dictating again to the reader what to think. Simply present the fact as is, rather than adding commentary.
  • I've taken a swing at these issues myself ([88]; [89]; [90]; [91]); feel free to disagree with the way in which I resolved them and recast them yourself, but they definitely needed attention, and the rest of the article should be scanned for similar issues. For a factual error to go unnoticed for so long is slightly worrying too, especially as it seemed obvious that the chronology didn't quite gel. I'll watchlist the FAC, so there's no need to ping me if you reply; I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able. All the best, Steve T • C 10:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments and—more importantly—thank you for fixing most of them yourself, lol. Your adjustments seem fine and your explanations for them also are definitely justifiable. The Flash {talk} 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome; if I get time later today I'll see if I can give some pointers for the rest of the article. All the best, Steve T • C 08:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've wiped my opposition. I didn't have a massive amount of time, but I reckon I've fixed the remaining obvious prose bumps. It might be worth pinging Andy to see if he agrees. One last thing, a link in the "Plot" section goes to Menorah (Temple); the infobox image shows a nine-branched Menorah. I haven't seen the episode (my kid is more of a Spongebob nut), but if the Menorah featured is also nine-branched, shouldn't the link be to Menorah (Hanukkah)? Anyway, good luck with the rest of it, Steve T • C 10:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, thank you. I have fixed the Menorah issue, so consider everything fixed :) The Flash {talk} 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 20 January 2010 [92].

1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt edit

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is the next step in my featured topic drive for Category:Obscure incidents from Alberta's political history that nobody really cares about. It's undergone a peer review from Brianboulton and a good article review from Hamiltonstone, both of which were very helpful. Steve Smith (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Fixed the sole dab link. No dead externals either.
  • Alts look good.
  • The few ref dates are ISO style. Prose dates are (at least mostly) Month Day, Year. I'm slightly disturbed by all the paragraphs that start with dates, especially at "Manoeuvring and negotiation". At least they're not one-liners.

--an odd name 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Comments (man, am I the only one who finds Canadian politics incredibly dry?)
    • File:William Abrehart and his Cabinet.jpg and all the rest of the images are clearly public domain in Canada, but I'm not sure the PD-US tags apply; there's no evidence that these were published in the United States without the required notices, and also note the template says that "there must be verifiable information about previous publications of the work", which is not found on the image description page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While technically that is the case, I have been told by a couple of Commons administrators that no one over there enforces that rule. But I would be fine with going along with whatever you suggest. NW (Talk) 20:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of the images in this article have been published in the United States prior to 1996 (as far as I or the archive folks are aware), which means that they entered the public domain in the United States January 1, 1996. Steve Smith (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then can you append that the archives are not aware of any previous publication in the US? And if the Commons chaps aren't going to enforce that (which seems foolish, considering its a matter of legality like anything else) they should just strip it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done (added standard numbers for a few that were missing them, too). Steve Smith (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I gave this a detailed peer review at which numerous minor issues were resolved. The backwaters of Canadian provincial politics is not an eye-catching topic; if Steve had added the words "shock! horror!" to the title the article might have got more attention here. Nevertheless, this is a solid, well-written piece of work, the kind of stuff unlikely to be available anywhere else but Wikipedia, genuinely expanding knowledge of an esoteric area. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments. It's really good. There are significant gaps in our coverage of such historical events, so I'm glad to see it here. Just a couple fit and finish items I couldn't correct myself:
    • Name redlinks... are many of them actually likely to become articles?
    • Check MoS... you have several instances of longer quotations that appear to end in periods; however, you have the period outside the closing quotation mark. Ex. "and 'if anyone gets in our way, he's going to get into trouble ... we must choose between principles and party, between Social Credit and Premier Aberhart'." In this case, if the quotation actually ends on "Aberhart" in the source, the period would be placed inside the closing quotation mark.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andy. To your questions, the answer to the first is "Give me an infinite amount of time, and they will. And even if you don't, I suspect Þadius (talk · contribs) will get around to them. On the MOS issue, I'll give that a look - thanks again. To clarify, this applies only where (as above) I'm quoting a quote from a source, rather than just quoting the source? Steve Smith (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right on the quoting a quote. It's a small item I would normally just fix but sometimes it requires access to the source to verify that the quotation actually ended there. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this article at GA a couple of months ago. I have re-read it. i don't know why everyone says its so dull. For political nerds in Westminster system countries this is a wild ride, an extraordinary tale of our system of government being pushed to the limit and then beyond. It's one of my favourite wikipedia entries. I was not familiar with some of the book publishers and checked them out - they look sound. I can't access these books, so i'm not commenting further on WP:V. But I don't think one makes this stuff up... The prose is excellent, and well-crafted to tell a story that is quite complicated. Linking looks about right. Facts are closely referenced where required. Steve, can you comment on why Schultz's article, which is perhaps the only academic journal article specifically about the subject of this WP entry, is only cited once? Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support, your earlier GA review, and your extraordinarily kind words. In response to your question, I started off by writing the article from the books, all of which are in my personal library. It was only after I had written the article from those that I searched for outside sources, including the Schultz paper; the vast majority of what was in there, while excellent, duplicated material that I had already found. I could certainly sprinkle Schultz references more liberally around the article, since most of what's in the article is found in Schultz's paper, but current citations generally reflect where I first located the material. Steve Smith (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well-written, comprehensive article for all I can see. Great work! Ucucha 10:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Comment. I actually liked reading this article, and don't know why it'd be considered dull. The subject is interesting, as hamilstonstone said, and the prose is engaging. The reason I'm not supporting yet is that I've a couple of picky comments; I'm not even sure I've identified a genuine problem with the article in every case. I also found the article suffered a little for overlinking, and deleted some links.[reply]

  • Have you considered explaining, as opposed to just linking, "backbench" in the lead? It's a somewhat obscure term, and the lead should be understandable without reference to other articles.
    • My thinking is that while the term may be unknown to much of the English speaking world (I'm not sure it's a majority, but certainly a substantial minority), it's likely to be familiar to a large majority of the article's readers, since they're likely to be disproportionately i. Canadian, and ii. interested in Westminster politics. It's a commonly used term in Canada (and I think other Westminster jurisdictions as well, though I could be mistaken), and I'm afraid that explaining it would disrupt the paragraph to little good effect.
  • Yes, it is familiar to readers in other Westminster countries, but i still lean toward Ucucha's suggestion that an explanation be squeezed in somewhere and somehow. I nearly suggested this on my reading and decided against it, but think it worth trying. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done this, but am not crazy about it; I'd welcome suggestions for improvement (or BOLDness, for that matter). Steve Smith (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamiltonstone started a discussion on the article's talk; I'll respond further there.
  • It might be more informative to have as the lead image one of revolting backbenchers, instead of the government they were revolting against. However, from a glance over the article, it appears no such image exists.
    • I've been unable to find any of the ringleaders, and the rebels as individuals just seem to loom less large in thie story (both in my telling and the sources') than Aberhart & Co.
  • "Genesis of a revolt" - why not just "Genesis", as this article is about the revolt?
    • Changed.
  • "While disowned by Douglas" - wikt:disown seems an odd word to use here. I suppose he had been in confict with Douglas; perhaps using another word would be better?
    • Quite possibly. "Disavowed" is the first one I thought of, but I'm not sure Hargreave would properly be the object of that verb.
      • The more I think about this, the more I think "disowned" is the best word, though I'm certainly open to specific suggestions. Steve Smith (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's just keep it then--the meaning is clear anyway. Ucucha 10:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knight-errant - is this link really relevant, or is it just an attempt to make this article sound interesting? ;)
    • The latter.
  • "ill-afford" - is that one word?
    • Probably not.
  • "such commission to be responsible to the Board" - perhaps overly formal or "legalese".
    • Not sure I catch your meaning here.
      • The full sentence is "The Board was empowered to appoint a commission of between three and five experts to implement social credit, such commission to be responsible to the Board." I believe the addition of the phrase after the comma is common only in registers too formal for this article, but (of course) may be wrong.
  • Is there a reason for not spacing the ellipsis in one place and spacing it in another?
  • Are you implying that public relations are not real work? Perhaps change "real work" into "substantive work".
    • Done
  • "the Social Credit League's sworn enemy" - perhaps it's better to make this point at one of the earlier places where banking is mentioned, such as the "banker's budget"?
    • I've added a mention elsewhere, but have preserved this one for now.
      • Thanks. Not sure whether preserving the other is needed.
  • I believe your not providing citations for image captions is justified by the fact that they provide summaries of information that is also cited in the text. However, in the image of Hugill, the piece about Aberhart viewing Hugill's action as insubordination is not explicitly in the text and should therefore perhaps be cited here, or included in the text.
    • Added a citation to the caption.
  • I changed the name of Aberhart's riding to include an en dash. You might prefer a spaced en dash in this context; there's a current discussion at WT:MOS on this topic.
    • I have no thoughts on the subject at all.
      • Ah, perhaps I shouldn't assume everyone has an opinion on obscure MOS trifles. :) But it doesn't really matter.

Ucucha 19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also do technical comments (although others have also done this before):

  • File:William_Abrehart_and_his_Cabinet.jpg and all others, as the situation seems to be similar for all. The copyright situation appears complex (cf. Wikipedia:PD#Canadian_images:_Yousuf_Karsh). I believe all images should have evidence that they were out of copyright in Canada in 1996, so as to be PD in the US as required. The template says it should be under Crown copyright or the author should have died before 1949. The author of File:William_Aberhart2.jpg is an Alberta government department, so this may be Crown copyright, but this should be on the image page. For the others, the author is either "unknown" or a studio; the image description pages do not give evidence that this means they were out of copyright by 1996.
  • Alt text is okay (looked over this in my previous review, but had no comments).
  • Sources look okay.
  • Still no dab or dead links. Ucucha
You're misreading the template - it says that the image must have been taken before 1949, and be Canadian in origin, because the Canadian copyright rule for photos used to be fifty years from date of creation. Thus, any photo taken pre-1946 was in the public domain by 1996. Steve Smith (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, mixed up some of the "ands" and dates there. I do think the image descriptions should explain that the image was PD in Canada in 1996. Ucucha 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does: "...and it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries)." (from the second template). Steve Smith (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I may be overly picky here, but I think there's a difference between asserting and explaining. Ucucha 15:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, fine. I'll leave a note at the relevant template talk page on Commons suggesting that things be explained there. Steve Smith (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll assume things will get resolved at Commons and am supporting now. Ucucha 10:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 20 January 2010 [93].

Drosera regia edit

Nominator(s): Rkitko (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article status because I've worked on expanding it and have exhausted the resources I have to make this a comprehensive article. I believe it's ready for featured article status based on the recent expansion and tidying I've done. I hope to improve upon it further with the comments left here. Rkitko (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical stuff no dabs, no deadlinks, Alt text is present but needs some work. It tends to be saying what is being shown (name of plant) rather than what it looks like - what colour are the leaves? Also pointless "image of.." Captions and alt text both include article title, not needed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • image review Images OK, captions and alt as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to address the alt text. I've never used that attribute before, so I'm on a learning curve here. Are they better? Rkitko (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me now, I tweaked alt caption because of suspect grammar. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific epithet regia - fine, but what is the etymology of Drosera?
  • a reference to regal position in the genus - word missing?
  • operculate despite the dabcheck missing it, this is a dab page
  • of the most ancient characteristics within the genus. Some of these characteristics... - can one of the "characteristics" go?
  • the most endangered Drosera species threatened with extinction in the wild. reads oddly, perhaps the most endangered Drosera species, since it is threatened with extinction in the wild.
  • It is cultivated, however, by carnivorous plant enthusiasts - "however" is meaningless padding. Don't vegetarian plant enthusiasts grow it? Perhaps needs tweaking to remove unintended but amusing ambiguity.
  • Most issues fixed. The etymology of Drosera is discussed on the genus page. Should it be repeated on each species article? Operculum (botany) isn't a dab page; it says it's a stub article, but it's more like a set-index article. And I'm a vegetarian carnivorous plant enthusiast! I can't think of a way to fix the ambiguity, though I think it's understood through the previous usage of "carnivorous plant" that carnivorous modifies plant and not enthusiast. "Carnivorous plant" is a phrase used frequently to described these plants, so it should be understood (e.g. the International Carnivorous Plant Society is not a wholly carnivorous society, nor is the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter a meat-eating print publication). If you still think these need to be addressed, I'll take another stab at it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with the ambiguity really. Personally I always repeat genus etymology in the species' articles for completeness, and to avoid readers having to follow a link to find out what the other half of the binomial means. I accept that other editors may take a different view, and at least it is a conscious decision and not an oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genus etymology and reference for it added to lead. Rkitko (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One problem with conversion templates is their inaccuracy. In the description 2 cm is given as 1 in (wrong) and 0.8 in (near enough). Also, why AE "meter" for a South African plant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • from 500 to 900 meters since there are only two sites, should this be at 500 and 900 metres? Also query AE "neighboring" as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • please check my meddling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the first convert template to 1 decimal point (0.8) to match the other and I used the convert template with the abbreviation for the 500-900 m figure. Fixed the "neighbor" spelling to BE. Notice any other AE spellings that need to be fixed? It's difficult for me to notice them. I always forget at least one when fixing the easy (color --> colour) and then it ends up looking inconsistent. Do you have a sharper eye for AE to BE spellings? Your welcomed meddlings are appreciated and look fine. Rkitko (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 11 (Schlauer) lacks a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 14 (Rice) needs a page number
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 is a database website and has no publisher, really. It's the same database used by the International Carnivorous Plant Society. It is based on the work of Jan Schlauer (and maintained by him and others). Jan is one of the science editors for the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter and is a published expert in the field of systematics and taxonomy of carnivorous plants.
  • Page numbers added to ref 14. --Rkitko (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another database ref, IPNI, to complement Schlauer's database. Is that sufficient? --Rkitko (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection. Thanks for the help identifying the full journal title. I couldn't for the life of me figure it out. I updated the article with the full English name. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I haven't read any of the above commentary so forgive me if I'm repeating anything.[reply]

Replies after each comment. For the simple ones without comment, I just struck them. Thanks! Diff of all changes: diff Rkitko (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third sentences of the lead contain etymological information that's only mentioned in the lead, but not in the body of the article.
  • The information doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the body of the article. Would it go under Description? A new Etymology section would certainly be too small and just repeat the information in the lead. I'm working on getting some more information from the earliest description of the species that may help that (my library was stubborn when I requested this info through ILL before).
  • Well, it needs to go somewhere in the article... how about just sticking it into taxonomy? It seems to fit in with "botanical history". Should also mention the common name in that section as well, as it's currently only in the lead. How about making subsection "Evolutionary relationships" into a section (could be renamed "Phylogeny", or not)? Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (p.s., the lead always repeats information in the article, so I don't think one needs to worry about that.) Sasata (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worked it in to the taxonomy section and updated based on information I got from the original species publication. Common name mentioned. I originally had "Evolutionary relationships" as an h2 section on its own, but someone else made it a subsection. And it discusses more than phylogeny, so I think I'll stick to the current name. More replies below. Thanks again for a very thorough review and all the specific comments. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*in the lead, suggest wlinking "molecular data" to something

  • "The leaves and tentacles, which are specialized stalked glands on the leaf surface" unclear - what are specialized stalk glands, the tentacles, or the leaves and tentacles?
  • Now reads: "The tentacles of all Drosera species are specialized stalked glands on the leaf's upper surface that produce a sticky mucilage." Clearer?
  • "...and can bend dramatically around the prey." What is it about the bending that makes it dramatic?
  • Now reads: "...that respond to captured prey by bending to surround it."
While I'm here, is there any more information on the biochemical/physiological mechanism the plant uses to accomplish this bending motion? Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"In its native fynbos habitat" this is the lead, so maybe a short explanation of fynbos would be in order

  • Now reads: "...compete for space with native marsh grasses and low evergreen shrubs." Fynbos is linked and explained in the text below. I'd rather not get too much into it in the lead.
  • "The lower altitude site is estimated to consist of approximately 50" ->"to have about"
  • "...and tapering to a filiform point." I cannot find the definition of filiform in the linked articled
  • Definition for filiform added to leaf shape. I've always been curious; in this case, would it also be acceptable to link to wikt:filiform?
I often link to wiktionary for technical terms in my own FACs, and haven't heard any negative remarks about the practice. Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link dormancy

*"Plants go dormant during the colder season..." What month? Dates are given for dormancy breaking and flowering, so might as well give this info too.

  • No reference I've read has specified the month they go dormant, though one notes a typical growing season from October to April. Sometimes. I added this information.

*"...which possess root hairs along the terminal 15 cm (6 in)." This number means little to me without an idea of the typical total length of the root.

  • The references I've used did not describe total root length, which is of course relative to the size of the plant.
...which leaves me wondering if roots hairs are always on the last 6 inches of the root, or if it's proportional to the root length. Oh well, if it's not in the sources, what can ya do? Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even the original publication doesn't really discuss the root system. A recent paper has gone to great lengths to describe the root system of Drosophyllum, noting that this is often a subject omitted when describing a species for fear of endangering rare species even more. Rkitko (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Studies have shown that the uniquely operculate pollen shed in tetrads (groups of four), a characteristic that is shared with the related Dionaea muscipula (the Venus flytrap) and Aldrovanda vesiculosa, is incompatible with genetically-similar plants." I'm struggling to fully understand this sentence; is the shared characteristic the fact that it's operculate, the fact that it's shed in tetrads, or the combination of both? Does "incompatible" mean it cannot fertilize? Does "genetically similar" imply the same species?

  • I've attempted to clarify: "Studies have shown that the uniquely operculate pollen shed in tetrads (groups of four), characteristics that are similar in the related Dionaea muscipula (the Venus flytrap) and Aldrovanda vesiculosa, is incompatible with genetically-similar clones, failing to produce seed when plants are self-fertilised."

*"Seeds are linear and ornamented..." ornamented with what?

  • Seed ornamentation is just a morphology term, meaning the seed isn't featureless. The references used don't describe the type of ornamentation, so I just tried to clarify what is meant by ornamentation.

*"Drosera regia shares other features with D. arcturi, especially the robust form from Tasmania.[2][3][6]" Three refs to convince me that it shares some features, but it doesn't tell me what these shared features are? I feel cheated!

  • Clarified. Two of those refs were for the first sentence, oops! I added a few more characteristics.

*"It has a diploid chromosome number of 2n = 34, which is unusual for the genus Drosera and closer to the diploid chromosome number of the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula)," what is usual for the genus? What's the chromosome number of the flytrap?

  • Gosh, I've been working on that for a while. I added a new ref and some more explanation. I've been confused by the conflicting chromosome number reports of Dionaea, so I just included the uncertainty.
  • relink endemic in Dist & Hab

*How about a distribution map?

  • I have seen no map produced (probably due to the species' scarcity, don't want to encourage the poachers, do we?), so I'd be wary of producing an incorrect one. Add to that the lack of clear, reliable location data beyond the variably spelled "Bain's kloof", "Bainskloof", "Baineskloof" or even "Baviaanskloof" valley, I've got a very, very vague sense of where this species is located. I'm tracking down the original publication of the species which might help (sometimes these older publications are more specific).

*neighbouring = Brit English

  • It's a South African species, so BE should be used. I'm used to AE and just started trying to fix all the spellings to BE, so I hope I don't miss any.
Search for "ized" and switch to "ised" to catch a few more. Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rkitko (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wlink morphological
  • "D. regia is found in a natural fynbos vegetation" Again, I think it would be worthwhile to use a few words to describe this habitat.
  • link grasses (maybe) and sedges (definitely)
  • there are some missing non-breaking spaces in the Latin names in the Taxonomy section; might be worthwhile to recheck the entire article for this

*"A. A. Obermeyer suggested..." who is this?

  • Linked (new article) and added "South African botanist"
  • wlink taxonomy

*"Phylogenetic analysis of morphological characteristics and gene sequences has supported the basal relationship long suspected of D. regia," Basal relationship with what? And link basal (phylogenetics)... ok I see it linked later in the paragraph

  • wikilink to basal moved up; clarified to "basal position within the genus long suspected of D. regia"

*somewhere "relict" should be clarified or defined

  • Now reads: "...relict characteristics, ones it likely shared with the common ancestor of all Drosera such as the operculate pollen,"
  • "on the basis of" -> "based on"
  • link molecular data again'; asexual propagation; root cutting
  • All book refs must have page numbers; should have ISBN as well

*not a fan of citation templates? I've grown fond of seeing parentheses around years, and bolding of volume #'s. Consider switching to the dark side.

  • Nope. Can't stand them. I prefer the formatting I've used.
  • sources in foreign languages must have language specified.
  • current ref #14 has no title, and I suspect it's foreign language

:*Now ref #15, not in a foreign language, title added

  • ref #15 needs pp., endash, and ISBN. How come USA is specified in the publisher here and not ref #1?
  • Already had page numbers (p. 84-85), endash fixed throughout article, ISBN added. USA added to ref #1.
  • Sorry, I meant page ranges (i.e. more than 1 page) should have "pp." instead of "p."
  • Oops, sorry. Got it now. I fixed the remaining ones. Rkitko (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*any chance of including DOI's (if available) for the journal articles?

  • Only one, it seems. And an ISSN for another. Journal articles are either too old or the journal doesn't/didn't use DOIs then.
  • not a fan of the current image placement (three images stacked on right hand side)... how about a Feng shiu shakeup?
  • I prefer images on the right. Images on the left always feel like they're breaking the flow of the article and you have a harder time of making sure the text isn't squeezed between them. I see no problem with the layout as is.
  • Note to FAC director: after doing some looking, I think the article is fine with respect to 1(b) and 1(c). Sasata (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I leave my support with two final suggestions: Sasata (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "2n = 20 is considered to be a possible base number for the genus that all other chromosome numbers in most other species has been derived from by polyploid speciation (successive doublings of the chromosomes)." This sentence needs a bit of work—it's somewhat unwieldy, and it starts with a number.
  • "A second population was located in 1926 about Template:6.5 away below" something funny going on there
    • I worked on clarifying the chromosome description. Any better now? I also took care of the template:6.5 issue. I had just forgotten the template name (convert). --Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I'm mostly satisfied with the prose, other than the items below. I'm mostly opposing on 1b and possibly 1c; cultivation is not treated thoroughly and I'm not satisfied that a blurb from the ICPS newsletter is the best we can do on the research side.
    • "this is often cited as an indication of these two species' ancient lineage." Avoid using "this" as a vague reference to some previous concept or term. This what? This similarity?
      • now reads "...the absence of woody rhizomes in all other Drosera is often..." better? --Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Studies have shown that the uniquely operculate pollen shed in tetrads (groups of four), characteristics that are similar" Why "characteristics" plural? Isn't this one characteristic?
      • shedding pollen in tetrads is one characteristic, the second is absence or presence of an operculum. Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, "genetically-similar clones" seems an oxymoron, considering the linked article explains that a clone is genetically identical and that is my general understanding of the word.
      • Good catch. Not quite an oxymoron, but I had attempted to clarify on Sasata's point above what was meant by "genetically-similar". Does simply deleting "genetically-similar" do the trick, or is more required to put "clones" in context? Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Exceptions to this include the Australian, New Zealand and Southeast Asian Drosera, which have chromosome numbers ranging from 2n = 6 to 64." Again, this what? This chromosome count?
      • Now reads "Exceptions to this base number include the..." Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not sufficient explanation of what conditions cause D. regia to fail to flower or go dormant. You mention that they don't go dormant sometimes, and that under Clemens' conditions they neither flower nor go dormant. Why is that?
      • We're at the mercy of what's available in the references. There's no explanation given anywhere in reliable sources. Rumor and speculation on the carnivorous plant listserv is that lack of a sufficient cold period halts flowering, but this is hardly reliable. I trust the source, but it's never been a rightfully published observation. As for dormancy, the only mention of it not going dormant was frustratingly vague, thus so is my description. I do believe I've exhausted the available literature on that topic. The natural variation of plant populations is often just assumed, and so no explanation for why some plants don't go dormant some years isn't heavily investigated. --Rkitko (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not sufficient explanation of the background and history of cultivation. You mention that carnivorous plant enthusiasts cultivate them, and you have a couple sentences about "Big Easy". But, how did this cultivation come about? Did someone have to travel to Africa and bring back a plant or a clipping? There is a bit more information available in the linked source, but how do we know Clemens' account is reliable? He purchased it from "Marie's Orchards" but that's a pretty long leap from a valley in South Africa. Do all enthusiasts have plants related to Clemens'? If not, what do they have? Etc.
      • Again, unknown, or at least not published by reliable sources. Again, the listserv discussion indicate all cultivated plants are the same clone, but there's no published history of cultivation. I agree it must have come from South Africa at some point, but we just don't have the information on where. I also wasn't comfortable saying this because again, I have no reliable sources to cite in the article, but this species is rather rare in cultivation. It's not offered all that often by carnivorous plant nurseries and most people get it from trading. Find me a source that says that and I'll put it in! But the truth is, there really isn't that much to say about cultivation. I'll try to add a bit more from the linked source as you suggest, but I wanted to avoid the section becoming a how-to guide (WP:NOTHOWTO) on how to grow the species. There is another source on cultivation of the species (Janssens, J. (1986) "In vitro propagation of sundew, Drosera regia Stephens"), but my academic library was unable to encourage a lending library to send it or make a photocopy pdf. I'll work on the rest of your points above in a bit. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough on both points. I don't mind checking for sources though, if I can offer any assistance. What library databases usually carry the relevant academic journals that might carry information about cultivation? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure if there are any. I do believe I've tracked down most, if not all, references related to this plant. I was only unable to obtain the Janssens (1986) article. I just put in an e-mail request to the director of the ILL system at the college I work at to see if she can perhaps try again. I have access to JSTOR, EBSCO, FirstSearch, etc. and I haven't run across anything that would clear up these points in the article. I forgot to mention that others since Clemens published his cultivar have reported getting 'Big Easy' to flower, but it's only been chatter in the e-mail listserv. I do wish someone would publish a new article on its cultivation so I could cite it! There is an earlier Carnivorous Plant Newsletter article by Bob Ziemer link that I initial rejected because it's really just his first-hand account of his growth conditions and experience, which may not apply to all cultivation efforts. Coincidentally, I got my D. regia as a gift from Mr. Ziemer. I'll work on this and provide a diff with my attempt for your review. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you're correct about the sources after digging around for a while. I've withdrawn my opposition based on 1b and 1c, and will re-examine the prose after your tweaks. The plant is certainly interesting! --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for your helpful comments. I've addressed some of the above in this diff. I also added a bit more of the cultivation info. Check over that and make sure the prose is acceptable. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I am happy with the revisions made to address my concerns. Great work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding distribution and habitat, is there any further information available on:
    • Legislative protection or recognition of the species being endangered by South African authorities
    • Status of land with populations - private land or reserve
    • Management of populations Melburnian (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent points. The only mention of legislative recognition is by the Andreas Fleischmann reference, [94], a forum discussion, but Andreas is a published expert on the genus. I've cited him specifically and only for the account of his trip there to verify the "50 mature plants" bit in the article. In an earlier post in the same thread, [95], Andreas mentions, "This plant is protected by Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act since 1992, and the protection was reconfirmed in 2000," but I have been unable to find Drosera regia listed in the text of that act that I could find. He also mentions that the plant grows within the borders of the "Baineskloof Nature Reserve", which doesn't seem to exist ([96] ?) or is perhaps misspelled. He would know better than I would, but I can't find the proper documentation. There doesn't appear to be any management of the population. Reintroduction of fire would be key, but no written record of any effort like this exists, at least as far as I've searched. None of the other general references I have discuss these aspects of the species' conservation and I don't feel comfortable citing Andreas' account for anything other than the personal observation of the population size. I hope that clarifies. I'll go back and look more for this info, but I doubt I'll find anything I can cite. Rkitko (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok... I found one thing of interest. The February 2009 interim red list produced by the South African Threatened Species Programme actually lists this species as "Least Concern"... Amazing. I'll e-mail the redlist officer for clarification to see if that's a typo. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder if "Baineskloof Nature Reserve" is a reference to Limietberg Nature Reserve[97]? Melburnian (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Likely. That seems to be the right area. I don't know if there are any publications that mention D. regia growing in this reserve, though. I'll do some searching. Rkitko (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Images look good. No criterion three concerns. Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 20 January 2010 [98].

The Battle of Alexander at Issus edit

Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because all concerns from the last FAC (with one explained exception) have been addressed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 1c: use of Britannica, an unsigned tertiary source by non experts. Your explanation is singularly unconvincing as to why we should throw sourcing rules for the Biography of a major historical figure out the window simply because this is a fine arts article. Alexander_III_of_Macedon includes a number of biographical secondary sources you might want to consult.04:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has been fixed, though I maintain my stance that Britannica is fine. Please rescind your opposition. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Analysis and interpretation, there is a very long quotation of Kathleen Davis; consider blocking it and other big quotes. No dabs, dead externals, or missing alts. --an odd name 13:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put that into a blockquote would conflict with the image on the left. I find that blockquotes break the flow and generally try to avoid them (the article's one blockquote is a translation and not an excerpt from a text). Unless it's a requirement, I'd prefer to leave things as they are. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't regard my comments last time as resolved; the only sustained and comprehensive analysis of the painting used is Hagen, with Wood's shorter analysis, in a book all on Altdorfer, also used. We have other FAs on paintings included in the Hagens' books, which are good popular works with articles in similar format on "greatest hits" of painting. Las Meninas does not use the Hagens at all, & they are I think used for 1/65 notes in Rokeby Venus, because these articles had better and fuller references available. This doesn't seem to the case in English for the Battle of Alexander, that anyone has been able to discover. It may just be that an FA standard of comprehensiveness cannot be reached without use of the abundant German literature. Two books that are widely available & have some analysis of the painting that does not really add anything to what is here (which is why I did not mention them before), but might increase the class of referencing used are:

Snyder, James; Northern Renaissance Art, 1985, Harry N. Abrams, ISBN 0136235964
Clark, Sir Kenneth, Landscape into Art, 1949 (& many later edns)

- both very standard books. There is too much reliance on non-specialist references here - the last two in the article, both on art-historical points, come from: "Davis, Kathleen (2008). Periodization and sovereignty: how ideas of feudalism and secularization govern the politics of time. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812240839", which doesn't sound like an art-history book to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll look into both. Meanwhile, I have a text from Larry Silver (Art Bulletin) which can replace many of the lesser references to which you refer. Aside from the issue you have with the referencing, do you see any areas where you think comprehensiveness is lacking? You say "It may just be that an FA standard of comprehensiveness cannot be reached without use of the abundant German literature." but fail to point out what exactly you think is missing. This is a 43 KB article. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced some references from Clark. I think he has something quite valuable to add to the Reception section; I'll get to that later today. I'll try to get to a physical library for Snyder. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silver is promising. We don't have anything on the reception until Napoleon, nor from German 19th century artists, many of whom were very influenced by Altdorfer & the Danube School. There are no technical details, that might or might not be significant - condition, restoration, indications of changes in intentions etc - perhaps if there was anything really important it would be in the Munich summary catalogue. But I think some of the things the article does deal with would probably emerge rather differently with access to works that deal at length with this painting specifically. Part of the trouble is that because the work is very untypical of Altdorfer in many ways, but characteristic of him in others, it is much tricker to use general statements about his art here than it would be in dealing with a more typical work - a difficulty in using most of Wood. Obviously without having that material I can't say what might be different, but that has always been my experience. Excluding the sections on the historical battle & earlier depictions of it, the article is not so long. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a paragraph from Clark to the Legacy. It gives a good indication of Altdorfer's influence on later movements. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the word 'stopper' used deliberately? if so we might want to use a hidden comment in the source wikitext as people may change it. Is there too much historical background e.g. on Alexander, which isn't necessary to understand the painting? The quotation that includes the word proleptically, does sound pretentious even if it has some truth. From a non-expert who had not heard of this painting before, the description of it reads pretty clearly, good work so far Tom B (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stopper is used deliberately. I'm not sure it's needed, but I'll add an invisible note since you've asked. Knowing the history isn't necessary, but it gives the reader a good idea about the heroic status of Alexander, who he was, why he matters, and why he was painted. The history also gives the readers a base with which to compare Altdorfer's depiction of the scene. I don't think how pretentious a quote sounds matters; it's the content and meaning that is important. Thanks for your comments. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support on 2c; ref formatting, should be easy to fix:

  • Under Notes, some references use one digit in the second page number (37-8) while others use two (37-38); please use two consistently
    All fixed, I think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some notes have multiple authors unalphabetized (such as 1, 6, 12, etc).
  • In the first reference: Is "Munich" the author's first name, is the date in the right place, and should there be a comma after the publisher?
    Fixed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fourth reference (Bryant 1996), unlink the publisher, or else link throughout; goes for other linked publishers
  • Corsiver; Childs 1994 should be alphabetized
  • Hagan; Hagan 2003 should be alphabetical by first name
  • Same as above for Janson; Janson 2003
  • Alphabetize Sacks; Murray; Bunson 1997
  • Alphabetize Art: a brief history (2003) Mm40 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will get on to it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hagens should be the way their book lists them, which is not alphabetically. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the references which are not alphabetized are arranged by primary author, which is usual, I think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. Striking oppose. Mm40 (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: most images are from the Yorck Project, which Commons have accepted as public domain. The rest are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • "Renowned for what Joseph M. Bryant ..."
    Who is Bryant? What makes him an authority on Alexander? This also applies to Mark W. Roskil, Kathleen Davis, Rose-Marie Hagen, Kenneth Clark, and Pia F. Cuneo with respect to their comments on this painting. A qualifier (profession or title) preceding their first mention would help.
    Kenneth Clark is one of the most famous art historians of the last century, Hagen a well-known popular one. I for one oppose and dislike explaining every name who crops up, if they are the expected type of expert for the subject - we ought instead to weed out any who are not art historians/historians - not that I'm saying there are any such here - or just reduce the naming in the text. This article suffers slightly from "over-attributing" very standard views or facts to individuals as though they were some original personal insight. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Remedied, I think (to both Jappaland and Johnbod). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with Johnbod that perhaps non-"true blue" art historians/historians should be excluded, sometimes certain reknowned figures might give interesting and extraordinary insight (imagine if sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke gives critical comment on a painting of a science fiction scene). That said, I still believe that clarifying the subject's field of expertise does good, especially for the general readers (to get a feel of why this commentator's opinion is to be regarded). Not doing so, in my view, seems to be creating a walled garden atmosphere for the article (either you know who the art experts are, or you do not). Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people of not the "expected" profession, such as authors, are quoted, then yes they should be linked or given a descriptor (like Schlegel here). But if the subject is history, or biology, and people are quoted without a descriptor, the reader should be able to assume they are a historian or biologist, whether "true-blue" or not, without having to be told each time. And really people should only be mentioned, as opposed to cited, where their thoughts are at least partly original, or especially well-expressed - of course knowing where this is the case can require a good knowledge of the literature. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Darius and his army routed."
    I thought "rout" is a transitive verb? In this case, either "Alex routed the Persians", or "the Persians were routed", right?
    You're correct. Fixed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cause of death remains a subject of debate."
    Source?
    Given. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While an exciting read, is the Historical setting section not a bit too long? It is about the same length as the linked main article.
    • I'm just not sure where to thin it out. I'm sure that some reviewers will object that something so long isn't required, but I think it helps to establish who Alexander was and gives the reader an historically accurate narrative with which to compare Altdorfer's depiction. If you examine the topic of every paragraph, I think you'll find that the account is actually quite concise and without extraneous detail. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This view is indirectly affirmed by the notable omission of the date of the battle in the hanging tablet's description."
    The connection between an omission of the date (and the omission as notable) and Davis's opinion seems to need a source.
    Removed. I couldn't find the source. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, a very good read (in terms of prose). Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all your concerns have been addressed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I enjoyed reading the article and learning quite a bit about this painting. Supporting. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written article on a significant topic. I have no major concerns. ceranthor 14:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Very nicely written throughout. No complaints from me either (don't say that often around here). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article reads well and is nicely written, a concern that I have is who is this person - Helen of Egypt? any more information about her - better name, dates, other works, when did she paint, or a reference would help...Modernist (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment - She was actually called Helena of Egypt described as the daughter of Timon of Egypt, she painted the Battle of Issus. I added 2 refs...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 20 January 2010 [99].

Noronhomys edit

Nominator(s): Ucucha 23:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Amerigo Vespucci visited Fernando de Noronha in 1503, he saw not only lizards with two tails and some snakes, but also "very large rats". It took nearly five centuries before anyone found the large rats back, but here they are now at FAC. Ucucha 23:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now look what you made me do!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you stole my article! ;-) Ucucha 22:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Always amazes me how much is not yet covered in this big ol' wiki. --an odd name 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the checks. I changed the map alt. As for the IUCN citation, it is mostly as recommended by the IUCN itself and is consistent with usage in other Oryzomyini articles. The main work is titled "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" and the author is "IUCN", so that's how we should cite it, whether or not that looks awkward. Ucucha 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • What about a habitat. If nothing else a from the ground shot is present here: File:Fernando de Noronha Conceicao Beach.jpg. Also, is there any chance of a map where the islands of the archipelago are visible that can go in the text (in addition to the one in the taxobox)? --Aranae (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that looks impressive. Yes, commons has some maps of the archipelago itself; I will add both after I am finished expanding the article on the local amphisbaenian. Ucucha 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Made a new map indicating the fossil site where they dug it up. Ucucha 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images and maps as of this revision are verifiably sourced and licensed, or in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Leaning to Weak support:

  • "... the authenticity of which is controversial ..."
    Why is it controversial? Elaborate for the readers.
  • Furthermore, "An account of his voyage, the authenticity of which is controversial, recorded that on August 10, 1503, he visited an island just south of the equator, identified as Fernando de Noronha, where he saw "very big rats and lizards with two tails, and some snakes"." is a very fragmented sentence... (count the commas). Can it be broken down into shorter sentences?
    (On both comments.) There's several levels of controversy here (whether the voyage actually took place and whether the account we have of it is authentic). I want to avoid going into too much detail, as it is not directly about Noronhomys. I expanded a little on it now, however, and will try to write complementary articles on the Lettera and his voyage.
    Suggest changing "which took him to Brazil. The Lettera di Amerigo Vespucci delle Isole Nuovamente in Quattro Suoi Viaggi[4] recorded that during his fourth voyage he visited an island just south of the equator on August 10, 1503." to "which took him to Brazil; the Lettera di Amerigo Vespucci delle Isole Nuovamente in Quattro Suoi Viaggi recorded that he visited an island just south of the equator on August 10, 1503." Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ucucha 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... that growth continued in adults, with old adults having larger mandibular dimensions than adults, and does not provide evidence ..."
    Suggest change to: "... that growth continued in adults—the older the animal, the larger its mandibular dimensions—and does not provide evidence ..."
    Done.
    Eh... "—with old adults have larger mandibular dimensions than adults—" is not what I suggested; for one thing, the concept of "old adults ... than adults" seems strange on the tongue. Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for that. "Old adults" and "adults" are often used as distinct age categories in studies on rodents. In this case, they sorted the mandibles in three age categories (young adults, full adults, and old adults) on the basis of tooth wear and eruption and measured them. Their results (table 5 in Carleton and Olson 1999) show that length and width of the molars do not vary with age (as expected - rooted molars don't grow when erupted), that height of the molars is negatively correlated with age (as expected again - with wear it becomes lower), that two measures of the incisor and two of the depth of the mandible are positively correlated with age, and that the length of another part of the mandible, the condyle, is also unrelated to age. They discuss it in the text on p. 27, but don't go into too much detail. I changed the phrasing again to something close to what you suggested to be a little more precise. Ucucha 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... in 39 specimens in which the entire molar row is preserved."
    Suggest change to: "... in 39 specimens with intact molar rows."
    Done.
  • Are there reliable records of measurements/estimations of the whole creature so that a size comparison chart (like what is seen on dinosaur articles) such as File:Largesttheropods.svg can be made? Saying "large rats" is not as impressive as getting a visual hint on how big it can actually be... like this.
    No. The animal hasn't been featured in the popular literature or anything similar, and of course, we can't have pictures of the actual animal (unless someone actually drew one in 1503). However, the article already states that it was larger than a black rat and I now also added a body mass estimate.
    The body mass helps. What I meant was did anyone (notable scientist) make an estimation of the entire size of the rodent, (since the article does go into detail of the measurements of individual parts)? If that is the case, a chart like that for dinosaurs (which are sometimes based on estimations) can be made. Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no one did. Total length is probably very difficult because we don't know how long its tail was. Head and body length may perhaps be estimated from available measurements, but no one has tried so far. Ucucha 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It cannot be helped then; quite unfortunate. Jappalang (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mass of scientific names (of body parts) astound me... I do not know what precisely they are, but have an inkling. It seems overly technical to me, but I guess this would be expected of a biological article. It does seem a bit worrisome that most technical names are red-linked. Perhaps this is a bit too technical? I feel overwhelmed at times and some terms seem sudden and abrupt, e.g. "The upper incisors are opisthodont, ...": what is "opisthodont", which was never introduced earlier.
    I believe all technical terms are explained or bluelinked. "Opisthodont" is explained in the following part of the sentence. I rephrased a few sentences to improve on this.
    Not quite, "anterolophids", "mesolophids" and several other terms are used in explaining previous terms. I am not so hard up over this, as like I said, I do get a certain idea of what is said (just not clear comprehension). Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anterolophids and mesolophids are part of a phrase which starts "The molars lack many accessory ridges, including ...", which should make clear that these are all accessory ridges. Going into more detail on them is possible, but would be difficult to do without a full explanation of the nomenclature for molar features (for example, the anterolophid is a ridge in the protoflexid, in between the anterolingual cuspulid and the protoconid). Are there any others that you think require more information? Ucucha 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On re-reading the sentence alone, you are correct. However, I think my confusion (when reading the article as a whole) was influenced by the mass of technical terms used. Like I said earlier, perhaps this also cannot be helped for such an article (biology). Jappalang (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I implied below, articles like this have to balance between being not comprehensive enough in failing to address salient morphological points and too detailed in including too much technical description. I have tried to limit it to taxonomically significant characters (like the absence of accessory ridges, an important synapomorphy of the Holochilus group) and some more easily understood ones (like the proportions of the molars). I hope I've struck the right balance, but am open to improvements. Ucucha 08:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article but mayhaps a bit too technical for the average reader interested in animals? Jappalang (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that might be a problem, but we have to go with the sources and the information we have, which in this case is largely limited to the technical description in Carleton and Olson and the even more technical account of the incisor enamel microstructure in Weise and Malabarba. I have tried to keep the information readable by explaining more arcane points of morphology and their evolutionary significance (such as the absence of the entepicondylar foramen, a synapomorphy of the Sigmodontinae). Not including this information would make the article fail FA criterion 1b (comprehensiveness).
Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 13:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying that I am supporting this article, but it is a bit uncertain due to what I perceive as a mass of technical terms (possibly a subjective concern, hence it tempers, but not obstructs, my support). Jappalang (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Ucucha 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - leaning towards support. I'm impressed by the depth on such an obscure subject - extinct species on remote islands can be very difficult to get info on. A few minor quibbles.
The entepicondylar foramen is absent,[15] as in all members of the Sigmodontinae; if present, it perforates the distal (far) end of the humerus (upper arm bone). - If it is absent how can it be present? Is it usually absent?
The first two paragraphs of taxonomy are more a history of the species and humans than taxonomy, perhaps breaking into related subsections might be good, or modifying the section heading to "Description and taxonomy"?
  • Otherwise this really isn't far off to my mind. It is technical, but that is all this kind of article can be, either that or really short. Oh, If you can, get someone to make you a diagram like this one, it would help the reader picture the creature. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. This one was in fact fairly easy on the information, because it was recently and comprehensively described and no substantive other information is known about it.
As for the foramen, it's present in rodents that are not sigmodontines (deermice and hamsters, for example, I believe). I added a clarification to account for that.
Such an image would be original research, I believe. There are no body size estimates, only a rather crude estimate of the body mass. Ucucha 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine and fine. Still think the taxonomy sections needs a rename though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for missing that. What about "Discovery and taxonomy"? Ucucha 08:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ucucha 10:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, leaning toward support. Overall it is good, and accessible enough if you can get past all the technical body part names. I do have a concern about overlinking, especially the red links. Are most of these really likely to become articles, or should they redirect to larger articles? Additionally, some of them are linked multiple times, creating the quite visually distracting sea of red links. I'd like to see some strategy in place for remedying this, even if it's putting together a small task force to create stubs for those articles. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting. Which terms are linked multiple times? They should not be, and I think I avoided doing that (except for mesoloph, the second occurrence of which I delinked). Writing articles on those terms is somewhere on my list of things to do, but it may take some time. I do think they deserve their own articles, perhaps with the exception of some of the molar features (such as the entoflexid). Ucucha 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and delinked a few more items. It's not just the redlinks—you had some other terms linked multiple times, sometimes even in the same paragraph. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought you were referring to red links only there. Thanks for catching these links; I found one more. I just created an article on one of the anatomical terms (posterolateral palatal pits), and will continue to do so. Ucucha 19:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now—concerns have been addressed. Good work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read this ages ago, but got sidetracked by real world events. My few niggling concerns seem to have been addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "extinction" section is awfully short (one paragraph), and to me that's the most interesting thing about the subject, so I'm wondering if there's more that could be written. Since there was no human habitation at the time, I'm sure information is scarce, but I'd imagine we could have some more detail on scientific speculation. Everyking (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carleton and Olson discuss this on pp. 48-49 (link to full text is in the article - you can read it for yourself if you wish). They go into a bit more detail than the article does, but nothing really relevant to this article, I think. Not much has been written on this animal. The only piece of original biological information we have about the living animal is that Vespucci saw it (with the associated uncertainties of that account); otherwise, we have to use the subfossils Carleton and Olson used to describe the species. In some cases, the subfossil records may be so good that they can be helpful in determining the cause of extinction (for example, one may see a gradual replacement of indigenous rodents by introduced mice and rats over time), but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
    • In that case, the only thing left is speculating informed by what's happened in other island rodents. There's an awful lot of such rodents that got extinct over the last centuries (see Rodents of the Caribbean for one regional overview), and some have better information. For example, the Canary Islands rat Malpaisomys and the Christmas Island rats Rattus macleari and Rattus nativitatis apparently succumbed to disease brought by introduced rodents, and Megalomys luciae and Megalomys desmarestii of the Lesser Antilles are thought to have been driven to extinction by mongoose predation. The article currently contains a summary of Carleton and Olson's speculations on that, as it should, and although I just added one minor point, there doesn't seem to be anything else to add. Ucucha 13:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Looks good, just a few suggestions: Sasata (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "N. vespuccii was a fairly large rodent," I've been told you shouldn't start sentences, let alone paragraphs, with the abbreviated genus name.
    • Quite true. Done.
  • I'd like to know in the lead if the fossil remains were complete or partial, and if complete, if there was more than one fossil.
    • "Numerous but fragmentary fossil remains"
  • caption: "…the island group to which Noronhomys is endemic." shouldn't this be past tense?
    • Yes, that's better. Done.
  • Michael D. Carleton -> use non-breaking spaces for names with initials (or the equivalent {{nowrap}} template)
    • Done.
  • "The material is now in the United States National Museum of Natural History" shouldn't that be States' (i.e. a possessive, not an adjective)?
    • No, "United States" is used as an adjective here.
  • link specific name
    • Done.
  • the convert templates are set to Brit spelling output, contrary to the spelling of the rest of the article
    • Killed them.
  • "Analysis of metrical data" is this the same as morphometrical, mentioned in the last section?
    • Yes, changed this into morphometrical.
  • "which are uniserial (consisting of a single prism)" what's a prism?
    • It's the tooth enamel. Incisor enamel microstructure is so arcane a subject that even technical papers which report on it generally include an introduction explaining important terms and concepts.
  • link vulcanism
    • Done.
  • "Remains of Noronhomys were found in association with various reptiles, birds, and snails" do you mean the fossilized remains of these creatures?
    • Of course. I changed it.
  • "The introduced black rat..." link introduced
    • Done.
  • I'd like to have a better idea of how well-known the fauna of this island is. What are the chances that this rat is not actually extinct, and just hides in the bushes whenever a scientist comes on the island? Do people live on the island?
    • There are a few thousand people there. The fauna perhaps isn't terribly well-studied (I think they had Ridley around 1890, who studied pretty much everything, and at least some people studying lizards etc. thereafter), but neither Carleton and Olson nor the IUCN include any speculation that it is still extant, so I don't think we should, even implicitly. Ucucha 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My database gives the spelling of one of the source authors as Weiss, not Weise
    • Looks like you're right. The Zoological Record does list Weiss, and I think it is this student.

Diff. Ucucha 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also checked 1(b) and 1(c); the coverage looks thorough, and the article uses all available scholarly resources. Props for finding enough relevant pics to make it visually interesting as well. Sasata (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:RED; redlinks are not a problem, and stubbing them is not required. However, the redlinks in this article leave sentences incomprehensible to the layperson, so unless the redlinks are stubbed, definitions would be needed here. One example:
What is an alisphenoid strut? I can figure out that the masticatory ... and foramen are two parts of the skull, I guess? In cases like this, the absence of a stub makes the article hard to digest. Sample only. Another sample:
  • The entepicondylar foramen is absent,[2] as in all members of the Sigmodontinae; if present, as in some other rodents, it perforates the distal (far) end of the humerus (upper arm bone).
Even after reading that it "perforates the far end of the upper arm bone", I still don't know what the entepicondylar foramen is. Another sample:
So, I know these bands are uniserial, and that is defined, but I still don't know what they are. Also, per WP:MOSBOLD, volume numbers in Literature cited should be bold; that can be done manually, or by using {{cite journal}}. The jargon here needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified the first two samples you mentioned. I think it should be clear from the existing wording that the MBF and the FOA are openings in the skull. I'll create a stub on the HSB tomorrow.
MOSBOLD only says "[v]olume numbers of journal articles [should be bolded] in some bibliographic formats"; in the bibliographic format (reference style) I chose, they are not bolded. Ucucha 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter-Schreger band is beautifully blue now. I believe all other redlinked terms are in fact adequately explained. Ucucha 10:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better: thank you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Is there anything else you feel needs to be addressed? Ucucha 22:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link is to foramen and is intentional. That page shouldn't be a dab, but rather an article on foramina in general; I changed it accordingly. Ucucha 07:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010 [100].

Sacrifice (video game) edit

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Perry failed to mention that the wizard, Eldred, was a refugee tyrant from a world ravaged by a demon he had summoned. Apart from sacrificing his enemies and using their souls as cannon fodder, Eldred also sacrifices his troops to banish other wizards! The game's graphic engine uses tessellation, and its results—along with crazy creature designs—wowed reviewers. Throw in five gods who comically bicker and plot among themselves (one of whom is a large anthromorphic earthworm), and you get a game that was praised by all and enjoyed huge profits from the sales! ... or did it? Read on and judge (the article had been peer reviewed twice,[101][102] gotten A-class,[103] and given a quick copyedit by Maralia). Nonetheless, here is a dithy to appeal for your FAC review... (sing to this tune in a Tim Curry voice, or if you prefer, Brad Garrett, both of whom voiced gods in this game)

I worked my magic dearly to do my best
There must be more to this game than R-T-S
Why should we look for some other text
Is this article not the best there is?
Ain't no sense in not reviewing
I'm gonna make it worth your ride

Don't you know
I won't give up until you've read Sacrifice
Don't you know
Why should I stop until you've read Sacrifice

Awaiting your comments. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eldred? That sounds like one of those Gregorian mission people. :D ceranthor 02:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please reconsider the dab hatnote on top—people probably won't type "Sacrifice (video game)" to look for any other sense of the word. Otherwise, no dabs or dead external links.
  • Alt text looks good. Perhaps you can mention that the game screenshots take place under mostly cloudy skies.
  • Dates throughout are consistent Month Day, Year.
  • An evil-looking character looking over a landscape...hmm...I swear I've seen that before...
  • Shame that there's no mention of cow launchings.

--an odd name 08:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, the hatnote has been removed. Blame Interplay's box artist for any plagiarism of concepts (heh). As for cows... I had taken a screenshot of James' Bovine Intervention spell, but the cow looked too small to be of any use (and critical commentaries of cow-tapults are lesser than the natural element spells). Tis a shame... Jappalang (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. Thank you for the fast response. --an odd name 08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Missed it, but I have added descriptions of the sky in the alt text. Jappalang (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (c.1, 2, 3): Well, you certainly put effort into the nomination statement and edit summary, props for that :) It'll take me some time to get through the entire article (workin' over the holidays, yay!), but I have to re-register my opinion expressed at the peer review that the article does not meet WP:NFCC. File:Sacrifice by Interplay - formation.jpg can be reduced in resolution, File:Sacrifice by Interplay - creatures.jpg could be cropped, resized or simply reshot, and I don't think the single opinion used in the reception section merits the level of commentary for File:Sacrifice by Interplay - tornado.jpg, especially since most graphic comments picked relate specifically to the creatures.
Aside from that, the sources look good and the more iffy ones have been properly defended at the Peer review, methinks. There are no gaps in coverage for what we would expect. One flyby comment that I touched upon in the peer review and want to stress again is the changes in tense (in some areas it's present, in others past). I suggest changing it all to past, this not only frees you from concerns about having to update syntax in the article in the future but also gives it a more historical framing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focusing on the tense issues, I was following WP:VG/GL#Verb tense where it implies unless a game never existed, it and its contents should be phrased in the present tense. Of course, I am amiable to changing this style if more grammar experts could weigh in (maybe we can possibly change the guideline if it is incorrect). Of the Reception section, only the talk on gameplay is in present tense, the rest (commentators' opinions) are couched in the past. If there are any glaring contradictions, I would appreciate anyone who points it out and I would quickly get on it. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the images, the peer reviews expressed a variety of opinions (agreeing they satisfy the NFCC and disagreements), so I would prefer a wider range of opinions to make a concensus. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Cites are good Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 2c needs a little bit of work differentiating between the work contained in and the publisher for some websites. I suspect Inside Mac Games is the name of a publication, rather than a publisher. This is a polish issue though. Dates are consistent in cites. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have differentiated the publisher and work for the Mac sources. I believe that polishes up 2c. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave this a thorough peer review which sorted out many issues. I am not a natural reader of videogame articles, but I am impressed by the clarity with which this article explains its subject-matter. There is a small residue of niggly points, none of which is worth withholding support for:-

  • Why the multiple citations? (e.g. at the end of the Graphics section, fourth line of Reception section)?
    • The recognition "by the industry" requires several sources to show that it is the industry (and not just one or two sites) that recognize the game. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To fellow journalist Kieron Gillen, the game resembled a version of Command and Conquer by Hieronymus Bosch if the Renaissance painter was its designer." I spent some time puzzling over this, not knowing that "Command and Conquer" refers to another strategy game. For clarity can I suggest "To fellow journalist Kieron Gillen, the game resembled a version of Command and Conquer as designed by the Renaissance painter Hieronymus Bosch."
  • I'm not sure that the entirely ordinary phrase "a massive increase in blood pressure" deserves the status of a quote. It's a phrase anyone might say.
  • "Another reason, offered by Gillen, for Sacrifice's commercial failure was the size of its development team." Should specify the small size, since this is I think the point being made.
  • I am not sure that "Legacy" is the most appropriate title for the last section. A legacy suggests something handed on or passed down; so far as I can see there was nothing passed on, apart from the game's pioneering of the mouse-gesture control system, hardly a "legacy". It's more a case of "consequences", "aftermath" or "repercussions".
    • Although "Legacy" might be pushing it, the three suggestions seem negative, and would make the game seem like some terrible natural disaster (not that Sacrifice evokes many positive thoughts, mind). When I read "aftermath" I think "hurricane death toll". Maybe I should blame the media. --an odd name 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with AnOddName about "aftermath"; it has been used too much with disasters such that there is a negative connotation in using it. I am amiable to changing the name of this sub-section (but to other suggestions), or removing the header and plonking the text into Reception, though. Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think leaving it is the best option for the moment. Maybe in due course a better title will spring to mind, but it's not an issue as far as this FAC is concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: an aegrotat for the verses) Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, many thanks for that. Looks like I finally got a degree for song-writing (heh). Jappalang (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments What makes these reliable?

  • http://www.gog.com/en/editorial/editorial_sacrifice
    • Good Old Games is an online video games store. Although one might discount it for commercial interest here, its editorial is sourced for (1) plot information (which has no personal opinions or judgments injected, hence reliable) and (2) David Perry's statement of which specific fantasy genre his team avoided in designing the game's creatures (the source states this plainly, making it easy for anyone to verify Perry said that). None of the statements are simply opinions and readily verifiable fact. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/31/the-making-of-sacrifice/
    • Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a website set up by Kieron Gillen, Jim Rossignol, Alec Meer and John Walker—all with long years of experience of writing for dead-tree video game publications and web-based established sites. This article refers to two articles written by Gillen, and the information is reliable based on his considered position of expertise knowledge of the video game industry and the subject. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/tfog.htm
    • This site is set up by Richard Bartle, co-author of the first multi-user dungeon (MUD). He is a highly recognised figure within the computer role-playing game industry as a pioneer. He also has a PhD in artificial intelligences and is an active writer on the multi-player video game industry. The page referred is his article on the state of video gaming, and information sourced is from the interview he conducted with David Perry. The information is fact (technical details) and not an opinion or judgment; hence, reliable. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As already explained, Gillen is already an established expert in the industry with multiple articles published by third party sources (you can find them in his article or a casual search on Google). Bartle is an acknowledged expert too, with his Designing virtual worlds (as an example) a source for several other publications.[105] As for GOG, it is used with regards to WP:PRIMARY; the article is not interpreting the information it supplies, and I see no reason to dispute Perry's words as given. Nevertheless, I have asked Ealdgyth to offer another viewpoint on these sources.[106] Jappalang (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was one reference that was using spaced em-dash; the others are using unspaced em-dashes. This has been corrected. Does that resolve your concern? Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good fixed. GroundZ3R0 002 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So unconventional were the designs that gaming journalist Michael Eilers remarked... wouldn't it be easier for you just to say "The designs were so unconventional that..." I'm all for creative writing, but simple english is just as effective here and improves the prose. GroundZ3R0 002 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the immense volume of reviews and thoughts in the reception section, I believe a {{VG Reviews}} box would benefit the article. This is going by the example set by other featured articles and the fact that such a thick amount of information would make it difficult for a reader to obtain simple review scores with such a format. Not a requirement, but strongly, strongly, recommended. GroundZ3R0 002 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I do believe it helps ease reader comprehension, but the section does that well as it is. The exclusion of this will not stop me from supporting the FAC when I have made more comments if there are issues I notice. GroundZ3R0 002 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "No sales figures were released for Sacrifice, but the industry acknowledges the game did not sell well"--I'm not sure sourcing that to RPS and IMG exactly establishes it as "the industry". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not just RPS and IMG; the two following sentences expounding on this (James Bell's and Gillen's comments) also support the industry knowledge that the game failed to be a best seller. I figured that rather than tack them to the first general sentence (doubling the number of cites to it from 2 to 4), they would be more suitably attached to their detailed statments. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Andy (below) also has doubts on this, I have refined "the industry" to "several members of the video game industry". Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further rejoinder: I have copyedited the article; I removed the unnecessary double-spaces between sentences, as the article was inconsistent about it, one way or another, and cut down of some redundancies and unnecessary phrases (there were one or two places I tweaked word choice, so I suggest checking and make sure I didn't misrepresent a source.) I also switched around some tenses. There are sections of the reception I did not change, because changing the tense from present to past would sound strange--the problem is that reviewers opinions of the game are essentially presented as fact, i.e. "Looking over the wizard from his back, the point of view focuses too close to the ground, preventing players from having a clear picture of their wizards' surroundings". These should be recast and optimally the whole critical reception section should be switched to past where appropriate, as you're describing reception that was, not is. I am leaning support, but the images are still a dealbraker for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have recasted the section a tad, and also added more to the spell effects on reviewers.[108] I had initially discarded them because their comments were "less impressive" than the quotes by Bye, Gillen, and Edge; however, by adding them, I hope they further the impression of the graphics were not mostly on the creatures (it was quite balanced between the small creatures and the "gargantuan" spells). This should help show the significance of the tornado image. Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ruhrfisch - I have read this twice now and it seems to meet the FAC criteria - it is well-written, nicely illustrated with properly justified fair-use images, and the references seem fine to me too (though I am not an expert on games). I have a few quibbles, that do not detract from my support:

  • Awkward sentence Close proximity to a fountain of mana scattered across the world increases his or her recovery rate as well. I think it means something like Close proximity to one of several fountains of mana scattered across the world increases his or her recovery rate as well.
  • Would it make sense to add "computer" before platforms in Multiplayer matches cannot be played between different platforms.[30]
  • Missing word? Perry promoted the game by visiting professional game reviewers, such as FiringSquad, and giving copies of the beta [version?] to them.[34]

Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your suggestions make the article clearer to the general readers, so I have adopted them.[109] Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: After viciously scanning this article for little clicks and mistakes, I have come up with none. I have no complaints with this article and therefore I express my thorough support for this to pass its FAC. GroundZ3R0 002 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments - Good work on this one! A couple bothers buried near the end... no show-stoppers but I'd like to see them answered.
    • "has been one of PC Gamer's Top 100 Games for at least eight consecutive years." Why no precision? Is the number not known, or are you just trying to maintain currency without going back to update?
      • Sort of both (though "at least 8 years"—2001 (release) to 2009 (last known Top 100 announcement)— is verifiable by checking up the PC Gamer's Top 100 for each year and Gillen's remarks. The phrase also allows a lesser frequency of updates (The Top 100 is also supposedly going to shift to a reader-votes based system instead of through editorial decisions, so future Top 100 might not be "reliable"...). Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but the industry acknowledged the game did not sell well." Hmm. I'm not crazy about letting Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Inside Mac Games speak for "the industry", are you?
      • Oh well, coupled with David Fuch's earlier remarks, I changed "the industry" to "several members of the video game industry"; this should be qualified by Gillen's and Eiler's pieces, and the followup by Bell. Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, thanks. Great minds think alike, I guess David? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A few Comments and questions for now—I know absolutely nothing about video games and apart from Space invaders, I have never played one so please forgive my ignorance:

  • I don't understand, "Each match starts the player's wizard with an altar."
    • Changed to "Each match starts the player with a wizard and an altar." Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Similarly, "turn-based"

    • The term is elaborated in the following sentence, but I see how it can confuse on the first read; I dropped the term, simplifying the clause to "which was released in 1985 for the ZX Spectrum computer." The following sentence is more than sufficient to explain the basic workings of that game. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*I didn't like "various voice talents" and "was an evolution of"

    • I presume it is "voice talents" that is more of distaste? I changed it to "voice artists". I dropped the phrase with "evolution" and went for the simpler "was developed from" instead. Jappalang (talk)

*Can something be done about "Solid"? Does it mean "robust" or successful?

    • The source states, "During the real-time strategy craze of the later '90s, publishers could just about guarantee that a solid real-time strategy would sell 100,000 units. On the other hand, a turn-based game needed to be marketed, promoted, and designed to perfection to crest that magical 100,000-unit mark." It could mean a real-time strategy that is either "fun" or well-designed would be a best-seller; however, unsure of which definition it could be, I felt it safer to just quote the word instead. Any help to resolve this would be appreciated if it is an obstacle to comprehension. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an obstacle.Graham Colm Talk 13:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*This construction seems awkward; "They found that the game's interface, presenting a viewpoint that looked over the wizard from behind, hindered them from having a clear picture of their characters' surroundings." It looks a little like a camouflaged fused participle to me. How about a simple "which presented a viewpoint"? Perhaps even set off with a pair of emdashes?

From a non-gamer's point of view, this is remarkably well-written and intelligible for a video game article (no offence meant David). I look forward to adding my support. Graham Colm Talk 11:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support There was a mistake about the size of the gaming market which is now corrected. I remember this game well, it was one of the last i played all the way through. Article seems to capture all the essentials. Very well written! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers, if you haven't already, could you please mention your thoughts on the images that David mentioned at the beginning of the FAC? Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on images: I think File:Sacrifice by Interplay - formation.jpg is fine. If it were any smaller resolution, I wouldn't be able to see any details and it would be useless. I concur with David's suggestion that File:Sacrifice by Interplay - creatures.jpg should be cropped to show just a handful of creatures, if at all. I would advocate for removing File:Sacrifice by Interplay - tornado.jpg completely. As I was reading, I didn't think it added anything to my understanding and I wouldn't say it is exactly the subject of critical commentary in the article. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I give. I have called back the monsters and retrenched several of them (had to whip some spells out to ensure they leave), refilming the scene for the monster cast. A new smaller-sized image, showing less creatures but zoomed in, is now in place. The tornado image has been replaced by one of Hieronymus Bosch's sketch.[111] Jappalang (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the image tweaks I now feel this meets all criteria. An excellent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010 [112].

Cock Lane ghost edit

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 21:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the Cock Lane ghost, while largely unknown now, was one of a handful of 18th-century scandals which today, almost defy belief. The other two being Mary Toft (who is included but not mentioned here), and Elizabeth Canning (who'll I'll get around to in a bit). User:Malleus Fatuorum has also been a great help with this, and if he desires I'll add him to the nomination. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
- Per WP:YEAR, year ranges should include two digits if within the same century (1756–57, not 1756–7).
Fixed Parrot of Doom 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes and references should have separate headings, rather than both being listed under the same heading (see WP:LAYOUT). Also, "further reading" should be listed separately to references, with its own level 2 heading.
I'm happy to be corrected if wrong but I believe this to be a matter of preference - "Some articles divide this type of information into two or more separate sections; others combine it into a single section." For me, I just prefer a table of contents that is relatively uncluttered. Parrot of Doom 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that point. Very well, since MOS accepts combining notes and references in one section, I'm fine with leaving it like that. I think that "further reading" still needs to be listed under its own heading though. You may want to combine it with "external links" so that the contents remain uncluttered.Wcp07 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I can buy that, its going to form a trio of 'scandal' articles and at some point someone has changed Mary Toft in exactly the manner you suggest, so I've changed it to maintain the same style. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the whole, it is a well-written and researched article and I would support its promotion to featured article after the above are addressed. Wcp07 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues have been addressed, so I support this article's promotion to featured article. Cheers. Wcp07 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: Have you looked at some of the recent journal articles on the topic? A search on Google, for example, reveals a number of articles that include references both to the ghost and to Samuel Johnson. I'm not sure they support the view that Johnson was a skeptic (as you suggest in the lead). T. Kselman's 2009 review of Owen Davies's book, The Haunted—A Social History of Ghosts (2007), for example, alludes to the issue. Says Kselman: "Ghosts managed to make the transition to the modern world, as is clear in the story of the 'Cock Lane' ghost, who persuaded Samuel Johnson and a number of prominent clergymen that she was the shade of Frances Lynes, murdered by her lover. But the courts found the 'Cock Lane' ghost to be a fraud, suggesting the contentious nature of ghost belief in the Enlightenment." I'm not sure what you mean by a skeptic, but in this instance, according to both Kselman and Davies, Johnson was persuaded by the phenomenon, at least for some time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's own notes, of course, seem to suggest that he did think that the particular demonstration he viewed was a fraud, so perhaps we may need a more nuanced view. E. J. Clery in The Rise of Supernatural Fiction, 1762–1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1999), a book whose first chapter is devoted to the Cock Lane ghost, seems to suggest in my very cursory reading that Johnson did believe in the "real supernatural" and came to the demonstration with an open mind. According to Clery, "James Boswell was intrigued by the reputation for credulity that clung to Johnson in the aftermath of the Cock Lane affair. What had led him to expose himself to public ridicule?" This is contrasted later with Horace Walpole's visit and subsequent account. Says Clery, "It goes without saying that Walpole is a sceptic; there is no hint of the interests that drew Johnson to become involved in the case, not even a shade of hesitation regarding the truth status of the phenomenon." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK all we have of that night's proceedings are Johnson's notes. Johnson was certainly a believer in spirits, he was a Christian, he had to believe in an afterlife. He was terrified of eternal, silent death, and also terrified of eternal damnation. He did not, however, believe that the Cock Lane ghost was anything but a fraud - in Life of Johnson, John Hawkins implied that Johnson's interest was supernatural, and that "by it he gave countenance to the credulity of the vulgar". Johnson thought that the Cock Lane ghost, if it was an imposture, was the worst kind - that it brought the afterlife into disrepute. Boswell (Grant argues) was "enamoured of the mysterious that he was constantly inveigling Johnson into discussing such matters". Johnson was indeed in a party of sceptics; This was a party that was not investigating the Ghost's accusations, but rather the Ghost itself. Aldrich, it seems to me, was extremely doubtful of Parsons' motives. The Captain had previously carried a gun with him, to shoot at the walls the Ghost was knocking at. John Bishop had a keen, analytical mind, and had previously exposed the lies of William Lauder, who had accused Milton of plagiarism. "A party of sceptics" doesn't mean "A party of non-believers".
Now as for Johnson being a sceptic, I use that word in the sense that the man had an analytical mind - this as much is inferred by one of the quotes in the article, but to double-check I'm going to email Ottava. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I meant was that it is clear that some modern references don't think of Johnson as a skeptic. (Clery for one.) It is probably best not to use that word in the lead to describe Johnson unless one clarifies concurrently what one means by it. After all, one of the common meanings of skeptic (Webster's Unabridged) is "a person marked by skepticism regarding religion or religious principles." It doesn't seem, according to Clery, Johnson was that. In fact the word "skeptic" is hardly ever used as a synonym for "analytical." OED draft edition December 2009, has as the 4th meaning: 4. "Occas. used with reference to the etymological sense: A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions." (Johnson was clearly not a skeptic in the original Greek sense either, OED 1.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably correct. I'm going to retain the "ever a sceptic" for now as it fits the quote nicely (until I get more feedback), but I've changed "party of sceptics" to "A commission, whose members included Samuel Johnson, investigated the matter, and it concluded that the supposed haunting was a fraud." I prefer the OED's second meaning of the word, "One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry (e.g. metaphysics, theology, natural science, etc.); popularly, one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement. Also, one who is habitually inclined rather to doubt than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him; a person of sceptical temper." Parrot of Doom 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more about the feud between Churchill and Johnson, in the legacy section. The source mentions that this is one of the reasons why history sometimes considers Johnson to be credulous, but that might be construed as opinion, and I think to include all of that would be veering a bit off course. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: after some quick checks and tidying up, every image has alt text, is verifiably in the public domain, and uploaded to the appropriate site (albeit one can be moved to Commons). Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Leaning to Support:

  • "In about 1756–57 ..."
    Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not redundant to have "about" for a date range?
    Some sources offer different years, so I've generalised to highlight this. Else if I omitted the 'about', people might think they married in December/January. Parrot of Doom 10:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... loaned his landlord £20."
    It might be worthwhile to look into how much this is equivalent to modern currency (initially I thought a few thousands since the defaulter was arrested but...). This would lend context to Kent's pursuit of Parsons for "a relatively small sum of money" later (and the £50 fine).
    Done Parrot of Doom 10:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... who reassured her that she would be forgiven for her sin."
    "Sin" or "sins"? If the former, was it her cohabitation with Kent, or her pregnant unmarried state?
    The source doesn't elaborate, but its probably the 'marriage', and not the pregnancy. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 1761 John Lynes began proceedings in Chancery against Kent."
    What were the results?
    Source doesn't say. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Johnson's quote in Exposure can be broken down and reworked into a paragraph that succinctly describes the scene with selected quotes from him?
    I think Johnson's quote is the source of what everyone writes happened on that night. I'd just be paraphrasing people who have re-written it, and it'd be about as long anyway. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of Dickens and his work seems to be a throwaway statement; I am not certain what impact this event had on his work. Likewise, the mention of Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters (a book I think is fairly obscure) seems scant in context.
    Yes, I'd wondered what to do with that, as its an unusual ending. I may just plonk Dickens in the "further reading" section. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rightto. I did some search and see nothing for Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters, whose article is basically something of what your article is doing with the event. As for Dickens... mayhaps there be potential here...!
    {About a character from A Christmas CarolNicholas Nickleby}
    She [Mrs Nickleby] remembers others' memories, and is haunted by others' hauntings-such as her great-great-grandfather's (possible) haunting by the Cock Lane Ghost (or Thirsty Woman of Tutbury).23
    [23] The Cock Lane Ghost also appears in A Tale of Two Cities and Dombey and Son. It is perhaps the archetypal meeting of literary celebrity and the returning dead. See E. J. Clery, The Rise of Supernatural Fiction 1762-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 13-32. Mr Mortimer Knag, a 'literary' character, the author of much unpublished work, is described as 'ghostly' (221), and Nicholas works as a ghost-write for Crummies.
    In addition to its recourse to hyperbole, the late eighteenth century resembles Dickens's present in its attention to the "messages" of "spirits," the rapping of Dr. Johnson's "Cock-lane ghost" setting the pattern for the modern "spirits of this very year last past (supernaturally deficient in originality)" (TTC, 5). The novel's first reference to revolution materializes as a contrast to such dubious emnations:" Mere messages ... any of the chickens of the Cock-lane brood" (TTC, 5-6).
    Edith M. Davies apparently wrote an article entitled "The Cock Lane Ghost" here. It might prove interesting to this article, judging from the focus of the journal.
    So it seems there should be material (and fairly respectable and reliable ones too) to establish a context for Dickens in this article and to flesh it (significance) out further. The other book, however, looks like a candidate to be dropped. Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a couple more Dickens books, along with a quote. I know there's probably something to be said about Dickens and spirits (Christmas Carol etc), but I don't know anything about him, and will therefore have to do a bit of sniffing around to put his interest in the Cock Lane ghost into context. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear there might be a misunderstanding of my issue here. What I am looking for is not a listing of Dickens's works to show weightage, but a reasoning of why Dickens considered the Cock Lane ghost to be of prominence enough to put it in his works (or a critical commentary of how the event was used in his books). Thus, listing its appearances is not enough. Exposition/analysis of "archetypal meeting" and "late eighteenth century resembles Dickens's present in its attention to the "messages" of "spirits," would be better. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No misunderstanding, see the second half of my post above :) I'm already on it, believe me. Parrot of Doom 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, tis a misunderstanding on my part then, no harm done. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Best I can do for now Parrot of Doom 13:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It helps a bit; at least it establishes Dickens's as a man who believes in the supernatural and Cock Lane seems to have left some impression on him (rather than a popularist inclusion or something). I believe more can be done (the Dickensian source hangs in my mind), but I think this is sufficient with the more accessible sources; so supporting now. Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I had a joy reading the article (the prose felt great to me) and twas an interesting case. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources, then the issues I raised cannot be addressed—so stricken. As for Johnson's quote and the date range, I am not hard up on them, but I leave unstruck for others to weigh on. The last point (the two book mentions) is more concerning, and I will support after it is addressed. Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: 2c. Where, pray tell, is "Stroud?"  ; where is "James Clarke & Co." located? ; Are you sure your Penguin is from London and not Harmondsworth? Is this the actual title, "Volume 12 of Cambridge studies in Romanticism " or is the title "C. s. in Rom." and the volume is 12? Date consistency problem with ISO: 1838–39. 39th month? Consider fixing by going non ISO with "retrieved 2009-12-21" Nice citation of pre 19th century publication data!
  • Stroud is at Stroud, the same as London is at London, or Cambridge is at Cambridge. I've added a location for James Clarke & Co. The Penguin book - I don't know, I don't own the book. I don't consider it even slightly important. No, the actual title is not "volume 12 xxx" which is why I've used the work field. The book is as titled and is part of a series, as also stated. There isn't a date consistency problem with 1838-39, nobody will assume that 39 means month, so that does not need fixing. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extensive comment regarding price series over time. CPI is not the indicator to use here. Loans are not part of the consumption bundle of an unskilled working class household which is the base measure of CPI. Measuring Worth has this explained quite nicely under which measure to use. A CPI can't reflect the decision to loan monies, as loans are not part of the standardised working class consumption bundle that goes into a price series... Especially not at the massive sum of £20 in the 1700s. "if you are wondering how "affordable" this would be to the average person, use the GDP per capita, or a wage or average earnings index. For the US, we have an index of unskilled wage and for the UK we have an index of average earnings." ("Which indicator," Measuring Worth) 1759 £20 => 2008 (last available year) ~£29000 using average earnings. This is a far better indicator of the massiveness of a £20 loan; Its also a far better immediate class indicator of the status of a usurer in the mid 18th century in the UK. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't we been here before? Didn't you recently offer to write something on this topic? Have you yet done so? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got Wage price series as a stub. This was fairly specific to the issue of wage / price series though which was the first issue. Have to think about rename and expand if we need it to deal with all historical time series. "Value time series" would be controversial, as value is a measure specific to Political Economy but not current economics. "Price time series" might incorrectly focus it on retail or consumer prices, and leave out wages, GDP, earnings, etc. It came up on Neville Chamberlain's second FAC because of the issue of measuring (apparently unrealised losses of) capital over time. Perhaps I should write it out of Measuring Worth's available series first, explaining the series utility according to MW's own explanations, then expand into their series specific essays, then finally use their sources from their lit reviews. But just quickly, given that this is about non-consumption spending outside of capitalised money, average earnings is the better series than CPI. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In your judgement. We'll just have to wait for your reliably sourced conclusions. To be clear, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I've just no tolerance for bullshit. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson, "Measures of Worth," MeasuringWorth, 2008. Is an adequate statement. Hell, there's the article title. Measuring economic worth over time it is. Its a bullshit area because the worth of money is not expressed in terms of a single type of money, but a variety of uses of money, including consumption, income relativities, and proportion of social product dedicated to production / investment. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of that, but your solution to this problem, which seems to be to omit any conversions at all, is less than helpful to a reader. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm not about to disagree with you because you obviously have a greater interest in these matters than I do. The figure is only there as a rough guide - it doesn't have to be exact, but I want a figure in there nonetheless. It just has to give people a general idea of what £20 was worth. So, I checked the value of £20 here, and it gave me:
  • In 2007, £20 0s 0d from 1760 is worth £2,817.02 using the retail price index. £27,382.55 using average earnings.
  • So I'm going to remove the template that's in there, use £27,000 (in 2007), in the article, and cite it to "Lawrence H. Officer, "Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Present," MeasuringWorth, 2009. URL http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/". Would that be better? Parrot of Doom 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with suggestions below:

  • I'm not going to oppose over this, but the linking of common terms like inn and and post office will get this article on Tony1's list of ridiculous links.
  • Fanny meanwhile went to stay with her brother, at Lynham This is presumably another brother, which might be better anchored with his name.
    • The source doesn't elaborate, so I've changed it to "one of her brothers" Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it just cheekiness that makes you name a section "Fanny" in a Cock Lane article?
    • I don't know what you mean...whistles... I did however consider naming the "Haunting" section as "Scratching Fanny". If that doesn't translate well in the US, you should know that Fanny means something else entirely in the UK... Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know what it means, minge commander. Works just as well with the American meaning of bum. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignorant American that I am, I don't know the difference between 3 guineas and 20 pounds.
    • Guinea is linked, there was a price comparison in the article but its gone, I don't know who removed it. Look above, there's a discussion on this very issue. Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • her sister Ann Lynes (who lived at Pall Mall) attended the funeral, which took place at St John's. If Pall Mall and St. John's has some significance, it is not readily apparent what it is. Is it really necessary?
    • No connection really, it was to highlight that her sister lived in London and not Norfolk (which is some distance away). I've clarified that. Parrot of Doom 01:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • *titter* thou are not the ghost of my Fanny!!
  • In all, an interesting article. Suggestions are just that. Do what you wish with them. Let me know if you have any questions. --Moni3 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with comments:

  1. William Kent, a usurer from Norfolk, Richard Parsons, a parish clerk, and his daughter Elizabeth. This sentence is ambiguous as it is not clear whose daughter Elizabeth was.
  2. The story became a focus of controversy between the Methodist and Anglican churches, and is frequently referenced in contemporary literature. This sentence is too vague (even for the lead).
  3. He refused, and following a brief argument, the supporters left. Who were those supporters?
  4. Elizabeth his wife to be imprisoned one year; Was the wife of Mr. Parsons also Elizabeth? (So there were three Elizabeths!) If she was, this should be mentioned at the beginning of the article to avoid a later confusion.
  5. I am actually interested in the wooden board used by Elizabeth to make sounds. It is mentioned only briefly in the article (Her maids then witnessed Elizabeth concealing on her person a small piece of wood, 6 by 4 inches (150 by 100 mm), and informed the investigators.). Can more information be provided? Why, for instance, she was able to conceal it for such a long time?

Ruslik_Zero 13:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010 [113].

Is This It edit

Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This Is It

RB88 (T) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Three images:

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • Alt text: Good.
  • File:IsthisitUS.jpg: Alternative (U.S.) album cover (fair use), used as secondary infobox image.
  • Usage: Good. Primary cover for main/home media market; sourced critical commentary on art in main text.
  • Rationale: Decent, but "Purpose of use" field should be improved to clarify significance.
  • Alt text: Good.
  • License: CC-by-SA-2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Acceptable for main text.
  • Alt text: Good.

One audio sample:

  • File:TSBL.ogg: 23.8-second sample of track from topic album (fair use).
  • Usage: Good. Well-chosen sample of non-single album track, with critical commentary on both lyrics and musical composition.
  • Technical aspects: Good.
  • Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DCGeist. One of the most thorough media reviews I've seen. I tightened up the US cover a bit. Great job. RB88 (T) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gil Norton never worked with Husker Du. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONE RB88 (T) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment Comments Support by PL290 (media licensing and cites not checked). Looks good on a quick glance. My impression is that this This is a comprehensive article and the prose is sound. I hope to find time to look more closely and will add further comments if possible.

  • There are two lone subsections. In both cases the significant body of text preceding the "lone" subsection should acquire its own subheading.

PL290 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONE RB88 (T) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With support from personal "guru" JP Bowerstock" - this use of "guru" in quotes hints at something without making it explicit, and hence is not really encyclopedic.
    • Used "mentor". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the three songs created were scrapped and were not used on Is This It." - somewhat tautological (since, if the songs were scrapped, they could not have been used) though I think I see the point intended; perhaps this could be recast along the lines of "the three songs originally created for Is This It were scrapped".
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and formed a good collaborating team with the producer." - again somewhat tautological combination of "collaborating" with "team" - perhaps "a good collaborative relationship".
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both parties organized a listening session with the musical material Hammond, Jr. and Casablancas had brought" - it seems to me that unless I missed one, there is only one Hammond, and so once Hammond, Jr. has been introduced, "Hammond" would suffice and be clearer for the remainder of the article.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transfer from the two loud guitars and the rumble of the bass picked up by the drum kit microphones was not eliminated on the advice of Moretti" - but rather, eliminated for another reason? Comma after eliminated would do it.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The record was streamed on Australian websites by the band's distributor BMG and remained available to listen even after the CD release" - the streamed record did not listen - perhaps available to listen "to", or just available, etc.
    • Used "for listening". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Japanese release date of August 22 occurred after two one-off shows [...] in the country" - the word "occurred" here seems to imply a chance happening and hence loses the intended point that it was (I assume) deliberately timed to follow the shows. Was it deliberate timing?
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moretti has called it a "horrible coincidence" that the band members deeply regret" - coming after "I found something even cooler" merely not surfacing in time to use different artwork, it's left unclear exactly what is "horrible" and "deeply regretted" about the foregoing sequence of events.
    • Came in PR as well. That's all he said. I removed as it's not that necessary. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Is This It" is The Strokes' closest attempt to a ballad." - it just me, or is there a persuasive but non-grammatical blurring of "closest attempt" with "closest to a ballad"?
    • Simplified to "attempt at a ballad". RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an upbeat, singalong chorus that is appended by a technically difficult guitar solo" - I don't think you can use "appended" like that! One thing is appended to another. Perhaps recast or use another word.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as danceable drumming patterns that evoke the sound of primitive 1980s drum machines" - danceable is somewhat subjective and the sentence appears to work well without it. Consider removing or rephrasing to be more encyclopedic.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, Is This It was named at number 48 by The Observer" - perhaps e.g. "ranked" rather than named?
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2009, Is This It was named as the best record of the 2000s by NME [...], and at number two, behind Radiohead's Kid A, by Rolling Stone" - again, "ranked" etc. rather than "named" seems to fit what Rolling Stone did
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uncut named it at number five" - same again.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PL290 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efficient response to the above comments which have all now been addressed. PL290 (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the comments. RB88 (T) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments Big and small, with everything in-between. I'll add more as I think of them.

  • You only need the earliest release date in the lead. Save the release history details for the article body.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, it would flow better if you discussed the making of the albu first before listing its chart positions.
    • It's come up before, but I use WP:LEAD always: "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time context. Also, it must establish the boundaries of the content of the article." RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find it odd that the cover art change is mentioned after the album release, commercial success, and world tour.
    • Done in conjunction with your packaging split comment. The staggered release means a bit of disjunct, but in the current order it flows well, i.e. Packaging and then Content.
  • Is "hyped" the best NPOV word choice here. Personally I'd say it was "hyped", but I'm not sure that's the best word to use for Wiki purposes.
    • Used "Promoted". RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, article body now. The "Origins" section contains far too much setup. Keep what's necessary for context and move the rest (details like band members meeting when they were schoolboys, family members introducing them to certain bands) to The Strokes. i'd say more or else you could integrate parts of the first paragraph into the second and go with that.
    • I removed some padding but I disagree with the general sentiment. I think it's a nice, measured intro on how they got to the studio, especially considering it's a debut album and not a second or third done whilst on tour in two years. Debut albums tend to be the "life albums", so a bit of history and formative stages is required. Trust me there was a lot more I could have included. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Studio Sessions" section, you need to clarify the band's relationship with Rough Trade after they signed to RCA. Did they leave the label? Were they signed to Rough Trade in one country and RCA in another?
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The studio is located in a basement with poor lighting; candles were often used during recording" is a bit choppy. How about "Because the studio was located in a basement with poor lighting, candles were often used during recording"?
    • Removed the candles bit, not that necessary. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formed a good collaborating team" Another odd phrase. Maybe formed a "good collaboration" would work better.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To show the tones and energy they liked". Are you sure the source means "tone" as in intervals on a music scale? Judging by the context of the sentence is seems like they might mean "tone" as in "mood". You might be better off just delinking the word.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sculpted" is a very muso journo phrase. Literally, musicians don't sculpt. Suggest rephrasing.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm noticing quite a bit of passive voice. Example: "During six weeks of exhaustive sessions, the emphasis was placed on The Strokes' gritty sound". Who placed the emphasis? Try and cut down as much as possible.
    • Weeded out what I could find, within reason. RB88 (T) 23:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raphael mixed as he went along to maintain control of the record until the final mastering stage and to show The Strokes a final product as soon as the band finished performing a track" Seems like it coud use some commas.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is mentioning that the band revealed the tracklisting on May 15 noteworthy?
  • Along those same lines: "'Hard to Explain' was named as the album's first single with a release date of June 25 to coincide with the tour". We're not a news site; we don't need to indicate every instance when things were announced. We need to know when they happened. Simply state that "Hard to Explain" was released in June as the album's first single.
    • For both above: It's the promotion section. It essentially has to show how the band and label created marketing and excitement for the album release and a basic timeframe with a few dates is necessary to give a more accurate perspective. Both also flow well with the tour comment. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moretti suffered an awkward fall". Is there such as thing as an unawkward fall?
    • Well, you could fall quite simply on your backside without much fuss or you could fall on top of your wrist or without using your arms in a reflex motion, the last two which I would qualify as "awkward". RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend splitting off "Packaging" into its own section; it comes off as a non sequitor as a subsection of "Release". Alternatively, given the cover image change was such a big deal, possibly merge/integrate the information together with the rest of the "Release" section.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason "Lyrics" are above "Composition"? Why not just integrate the two (particular since you go down the tracklisting when discussing the songs)?
    • It's more of a personal preference really. I also like splitting them for a nicer article and for the reader to specifically understand both facets separately. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had notable success in Scandinavia" Does the source say that? You could do without it and not harm the sentence at all.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The record was listed at number 71 on the UK Albums Chart for 2001". I assume you mean the year-end chart? Also, it's awkward that the Scandinavia info is in between two sentences about the album's success in the UK.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast, Jon Monks of Stylus gave the album a rating of C+, one of the lowest that it received". That last part isn't necessary. People can determine that themselves if they want to.
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the influence section: any chance you can find information about bands directly citing the record as an influence?
    • No luck here. I doubt any band of the last decade would cite an album released in 2001 for fear of being called copyists and losing street cred. RB88 (T) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, a little bit of luck. RB88 (T) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "--two places higher than the The Velvet Underground's debut LP The Velvet Underground & Nico—" Does the source cited make a big deal out of this? If not, throw it out.
    • Well, considering earlier in the article we've talked about influences and transcending them, it seems a nice bit of information. Also to break the monotony of just listing lists. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's undue emphasis. After all, you mention other influences on the band, but aren't noting how Is This It outranked those records (which you shouldn't, by the way). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, took it out. RB88 (T) 01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing with the NME and Rolling Stone decade lists. I'm sure it outranked a slew of other notable albums, but it's not important to draw attention to it.
    • I like to include the second placed album it beat or the first placed album it was beaten by. It brightens up the listing lists process and also gives a perspective about the list and the pulication. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think "Release history" sections are worthless and you certainly aren't obligated to have one. However, if you do insist on having one, you should shore up the references. I don't necessary know how catalog numbers work, but those numbers listed are only part of the numbers I see in certain refs. Also, I'm not quite sure all those refs specifically state that that catalog number was specifically released for that region. Once again, double check the sources and weed out what isn't soundly supported. Or just chuck the whole thing and do without it.
    • I'm a bit puzzled by this. I checked the references and everything is in order. RB88 (T) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's the one big problem the article currently has that needs to be immediately addressed. For the UK chart positions, you cite ""UK Top 40 Hit Database". The Official UK Charts Company / EveryHit. http://www.everyhit.com/." Every Hit is in no way affiliated with the official UK charts. It's run by some guy who owns a lot of singles; see the About page on the website. That's not the sort of source you want to rely on, particularly when you can ring up User:JD554 and ask him to cite the chart positions from his far more verifiability policy-friendly UK chart books (he has one that goes up to 2006, I believe). He's always willing to help out with that sort of thing, so it shouldn't be much of a bother to address this point.
    • EveryHit's reliability has been proven time and time again. In fact, it was JD who gave me sources to use during one of my FACs and someone else's too. But, here you go again: Used by Reuters, Used in Parliament!!, and even in Norway. I did remove the UK charts bit though. RB88 (T) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, you have access to offical documentation. Between a fansite and an offical book of chart positions, go with the book. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I think it's transcended the "fansite" tag when it was used in Parliament. But I've still got the British charts book from Talking Heads (and a whole lot of fines, too). It's now up. RB88 (T) 01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the last item, there's no major outstanding problems. Overall, I am pleased with the quality of the article. Address these comments and I'll be ready to support the article's nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments— FYI, I like this album a lot. Reviewing the lead for now:

  • "first released on July 30, 2001 in Australia by BMG, a distributor acting on behalf of RCA Records, the band's primary label"—seems like too much (unimportant) information. I suggest removing all mention of the record labels there, and moving the release date to the first sentence: "Is This It is the debut studio album by American indie rock band The Strokes, released in July 2001." The 2002 reissue bit can go as well. Instead, mention how RCA released the thing with a different tracklisting ('cause of 9/11) and album cover a few months after the Rough Trade version (if necessary).
    • DONE all removals and added the track change. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is considered a zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s"—What is "It" here? A little vague: do you refer to the album or the release of the album? Also, since you discuss the legacy in the third paragraph, why not move the sentence there?
    • DONE. It was added at PR, especially because WP:LEAD says "Also, it must establish the boundaries of the content of the article." RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "western English-speaking world" is very vague. Check out its article, did the album go platinum in all those countries?!
    • DONE away with the vagueness. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't put my finger on it, but the second paragraph reads very choppily to me. Especially "details young life and encounters in cities like New York". I also don't see why the three singles need to be mentioned there. Songs like the title track and "The Modern Age" also revolve around the same themes. (I have gone ahead and tweaked the second paragraph)
    • Well, you've sorted it out yourself and I tidied up.
  • You haven't exactly described why the record is considered so influential in the thing. Namely, the whole "Return to Rock" thing The Strokes championed along with The White Stripes; without this The Libertines, Franz Ferdinand and Arctic Monkeys probably wouldn't have flourished so much. (I prefer you give specific info like this rather vague statements about it being zeitgeist-defining)—indopug (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Zeitgeist-defining" is not vague. For one, it was specifically used by The Guardian and covers everything, from NYC's scene, music, attire etc which are mentioned by all the other sources. Specifying just the Return to Rock bands would not be summative in the lead and also incorrect. It did much more than that, including changing the music industry and pop music. RB88 (T) 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a Spin book that can possibly add to this, given there's a chapter on the "Return of Rock" (my god, isn't that pretentious?) in it. I'll need to double-check it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • TBH, I think I've covered all bases with regards to Legacy, but it'd be nice to add Spin's "Return to Rock" phrase as a tying sentence. RB88 (T) 14:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use only a single source when it comes to discussing the lyrics (the Roach book). Surely this section can be expanded considering how acclaimed and written-about Casablancas' lyrics were?—indopug (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's yer lot I'm afraid. All interviews and biopics focused on image rather than content. If it wasn't for the SOS article, I think I would have struggled for the recording info as well. Like for the whole article (and all my articles), searched Google Archives, music publications (not just the obvious ones), fansites, and the relevant books. If you can find me a source about lyrics, I'd be shocked. At one point, I was thinking of merging Content into Studio sessions due to its thinness. Thank God for the bits of info from Roach. RB88 (T) 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the sources you've used in the article? For example, the Rolling Stone review quotes a lot of the lyrics, and tries to grapple what Casablancas is trying to say. Similarly, you might find snippets in the all the reviews/interviews. You could also use the RS review for general descriptions of the band's music—"The Strokes are obsessed with rhythm, and at times their approach is more like that of a soul or funk band than a rock band: Each player, even the drummer, pushes at the melody from a different rhythmic angle until there are no more angles left to explore. Albert Hammond Jr. and Nick Valensi's interlocking, incessant rhythm-guitar parts free bassist Nikolai Fraiture to sweeten songs such as "Someday," "Last Nite" and the title track with graceful, Motown-like countermelodies."—indopug (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I argue that reviews shouldn't be used for general descriptions of the band's music, because reviews aren't held to the same criteria as a interviewer or someone writing an article. The point of a review is to provide critical opinion, and thus they should be relegated to the critical reception section. That reminds me: I noticed there was something from the legacy section pulled from a PopMatters concert review. You should junk that, because the writer is merely setting up his review, and the review is not an objective look at the band's legacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly why I didn't use reviews. I knew you were gonna pipe in at some point with that. As for the PopMatters thing, I disagree. "The review is not an objective look at the band's legacy" makes no sense. All attributed quotes in Legacy are subjective points of view, often from subjective lists. It doesn't matter if it's a concert review because it doesn't mean what he wrote or elements of it are not true. If you read the review, the first half is totally historical and about the New York scene. So, historical and his opinion, and considering he works for a notable and reliable source, it merits inclusion.RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: the PopMatters review. It's the opener for a review about a concert performance from 2006 (a performance completely unrelated to the album), which is meant purely as editorial, not hardcore journalism. This is a concert review, not an article about the legacy of Is This It. It's inappropriate to quote this particular review for this purpose. You have plenty of other more appropriate sources in that same section that directly address the topic at hand, anyways. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-- All that I've read above is your personal, subjective decision about biopics, what constitutes one, and the differences in journalism. The fact of the matter is that PopMatters and its writers and content fulfil both WP:N and WP:R. This is what he wrote in the first historical part of the concert review:

"For those steeped in the band-a-minute scene of present-day New York, it's easy to forget that, at the turn-of-the-century, not only did the local scene not compare to today's, but that there wasn't really a scene at all. Circa 2000, NYC was a pretty musically barren place to be - a city with plenty of rock n' roll history, but very little in the way of a present. And then, with an unassuming 11-track debut album, five city kids in thrift-store clothes came along and changed everything. Since the release of Is This It?, New York has not only returned to its glory as a hotspot for cutting-edge music, but has actually been elevated once more to a prime focus of international attention.What the Strokes did, however, goes hand in hand with how they did it. It wasn't by reinventing what it means to be from NYC that the quintet gained the spotlight, but rather by reminding us what it always meant. By capturing the essence of precursors like the Velvet Underground, the Ramones, Blondie, and Television and reconstituting it for a new generation, the band became the sole contemporary heir to the very same lineage that put the city on the rock map in the first place. And now, just a few short years later, with the band members still not even out of their 20s, the Strokes stand as the fathers (or at least godfathers) to modern New York music, with everyone from Brooklyn to London citing them as an influence. So where does that leave an essentially young band that, just five years on, is already viewed as the established order, or the soon-to-be old guard?"

And this what I wrote: Doug Levy of PopMatters suggests that, through Is This It, The Strokes created New York City's post-millennial music scene and returned it to a cutting-edge glory, "with everyone from Brooklyn to London citing them as an influence".

I don't see any problem whatsoever with sourcing apart from your personal opinion about what constitutes journalism. RB88 (T) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a review about Is This It. This is a review about a show five years after the album came out, with the author using his opinion on the record's impact to set up the review. The piece as a whole is not directly about the album and shouldn't be treated as authoritative, because that's not the point of the piece. This is like quoting the first paragraph of a review for a concert promoting Kid A to describe the legacy of The Bends. It's especially striking if you compare it to the other references in the section. There's best-of album list, best-of album list, best-of album list . . . and then an excerpt from a concert review from years later. You shouldn't have to rely on a concert review that has nothing directly to do with the album for statements about the album's impact. Find something more relevant. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for... Alright, used NME instead. You better support. RB88 (T) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • Composition: I notice that although you do track-by-track analysis of the music, you are not highlighting the overall trends on the album. If you don't want to use reviews per Wesley, there is this CMJ article I found in Google Books: here. In particular, Valensi's quote: "there's no bullshit, no gimmicks, no tricks to try to get you to like the song. We don't put in a guitar solo just to have one." Also, CMJ's description "nervous energy pop with a romantic slouch" seems apt (obviously, there might more statements in the sources you have already used).
    • I'll add 1 or 2 quotes like for the lyrics section. BRB. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE. RB88 (T) 12:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you say most of the sources concentrate on their 'image', we probably should devote more to their fashion-sense as well. I just see "skinny jeans and guitars" . . .
    • Well, the image has to be in relation to their and THIS album's influence as it is in the Legacy section. It can't just be about them. Remember that it is an article about the album, not the band. As I've said above, I think I've covered all bases in terms of summation and comprehensiveness there: music, attire, industry. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The track listing is pretty simple, is that template really necessary?—indopug (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's come up before. TBH, I think readability and presentation often get neglected on Wikipedia. Yes, it is simple but the alternative is just a whole lot of quote marks, dashes, and numbers that will make reader's brains vomit. The article is neater this way. RB88 (T) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I've come a bit late after a request, and it looks like the problems I found have been brought up and addressed by others already. The article looks very good, and I support the nomination. Timmeh 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers. RB88 (T) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am close to supporting, but have a few final quibbles—
  • you continue to use "English-speaking world" even though it is such a vague descriptor (per its own article, it covers so many countries. The Strokes didn't revolutionise all those markets).
    • DONE RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move "zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s" to the third paragraph of the lead where you discuss the impact of the album.
    • DONE RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • while I agree that Is This It did influence many bands, and started some hip fashion trends, I am not so sure it was "a zeitgeist-defining moment for the musical landscape of the 2000s", or why "record is considered crucial in the development ... of the post-millennial music industry in the English-speaking world". The Legacy section only explains bands influenced by the album, and musical styles that became popular because of it. This does not translate to changing the music industry itself. As an alternative, could you add a quote in the lead instead that neatly sums up its influence? At the same time, it wouldn't like Wikipedia itself is stating that the album changed the music industry; it is an opinion that we would be attributing to somebody else.
    • That's why I said "it is considered". The lead is meant to summarise the text and I'd rather not add a quote. I did tone it down a bit however. I think influencing bands, scenes, trends, and charts is clearly influencing the music industry. Plus there's a direct quote from the Boston Herald about it. It's not just about about band influence the Legacy section. RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That pic of the band is awful. How about this one instead?—indopug (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE, but not that one. RB88 (T) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Few more I found while copy-editing yesterday:

  • "After signing with RCA, The Strokes received full artistic control from the company." and "The producer and the band were given complete control only when Casablancas persuaded the delegate..."—contradiction?
    • DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raphael mixed as he went along to maintain control of the record until the final mastering stage, and to show The Strokes a final product as soon as the band finished performing a track"—needs a bit of a rewrite 'cause I needed to read it a couple of times to let the meaning of the sentence sink in.
    • DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A typical concert set-up of The Strokes from 2006"—how do you know it was typical?
    • DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you modify the second paragraph of Critical reception so that it doesn't mention that The Strokes were influenced by the Velvets and Television thrice.
    • DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Music recording sales certification, platinum and gold should in lowercase in the middle of sentences.
    • DONE RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extremely favorable"—'extremely' generally has negative connotations, doesn't it? I'd much prefer a blander term like 'very'.
    • I've never heard the argument that an adverb like "extremely" inherently has positive or negative connotations. It depends what follows it as is the case with adverbs. I think it's fine. I use very/highly for over 80s on Metacritic and extremely for 90+. RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NME blog piece that says the album is overrated and sucks, and has an awful legacy. Worthy of usage? (you do use one that calls it album of the decade)
    • NME's consensus as a publication is that this is the next best thing since sliced bread. That's a minor view within the publication. Also, the section is called Legacy and not Non-legacy. The wide consensus is also extremely favourable. Plus, I even squeezed in the negative comments about encouraging bad copyists. RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The July and August 2001 cover art"—not very clear what you are referring to here, esp. confusing since you bring dates into the picture. How about just call it the "cover art", and call the other one the "US cover"?—indopug (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get the point, but it's the lesser of all evils. Anything else (I don't even know how to replace it properly) would confuse the reader, mess the flow, and ruin the timeframe. I think it's OK especially coming straight after the Release dates a paragraph before. RB88 (T) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—indopug (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Took you long enough. Cheers. If Wes doesn't support, I'm going round his house and smashing his virtual knees in. He'll be in bits (geddit?). I'll get my coat. RB88 (T) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinked

  • Why is "produced" linked? Is "singles" an uncommon word? Who doesn't know what a "drum kit" is? "Amplifiers"? Under "Personnel", I can't see much that needs linking: hand up who doesn't know what a guitar is, or drums, or photography? Several items are linked for the second time. Tony (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect Tony, I don't think it's overlinked. I went through it just now for the 1786th time. Producer and amplifier are fairly technical words or that need a better understanding by non-experts. Things like singles and drum kit may be more common, but I do write my articles for the whole spectrum of hermits to cognoscenti and the linked pages have fairly music-specific text. (A time springs to mind when someone said to link DJ cos he didn't know what they did!) As for Personnel, the convention for albums is to link the materials (and even the names sometimes) for reader ease. But I'm willing to delink them if you're that bothered. RB88 (T) 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only outstanding issue to me is that when I checked the references upon my initial review, it didn't seem like some details in the Release History section were supported by the references. However, as I'm currently stuck using a shoddy public computer, it's a bit of a hassle to load more page windows to double check the refs. Can others take a look at the section? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said before, all cites support the codes even if you cross reference them. It's very easy, just click through. I don't understand what's so hard. (But maybe these straws are warming materials in the winter.) The European one you mentioned on my talk page is from Ultratop, the Belgian body, which has the Pan-European chart rankings next to the codes. But, I also found a nice shiny EU flag source to keep you happy. See, same code!. RB88 (T) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do cites 83 and 85 verify the exact release dates you listed in the table? Furthermore, can you inline cite all the release dates? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cites are not about the dates. I don't think dates need that in the same way as track listing doesn't. It just happens/exists. Codes however are more specific and need refs (although you could argue the same there). I'm just thorough and like to source them. RB88 (T) 05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be thorough, cite everything in the table. Also, the catalogue code would be listed on the album itself (therefore being a self-reference item like a tracklist), but the full release date wouldn't (at most you get a year on the copyright notice; I don't think I've ever seen a full release date on album packaging). Thus the latter needs an inline citation more than the former. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took it all out. I can't be arsed with this anymore. Major markets are covered in prose anyway. I know you've been campaigning to have those lists removed everywhere and now you got it. Well done. So release the straws and support. I'm done on my side. RB88 (T) 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love you too. Moving on, I mentioned above, "In the 'Studio Sessions' section, you need to clarify the band's relationship with Rough Trade after they signed to RCA. Did they leave the label? Were they signed to Rough Trade in one country and RCA in another?" I reread the article section and it implies that the group moved from Rough Trade to RCA, but then the release section has Geoff Travis talking about the Australian release. And we know that the album came out in the UK on Rough Trade. Is there further information to clarify the band's label situation? For example, when it first got a record deal, Oasis was signed worldwide with Epic Records, expect for the UK, where they were signed to Creation as part of their contract agreement. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RB88 (T) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome show, great job. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added one sentence that may need tweaking, so refs won't be left hanging in mid-air. There's an awful lot of linking in there ... do we really need links to The New York Times, guitar, and other common terms? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. I tidied it up a bit. I'm surprised you consider The New York Times an overlink. Organisations always have to be linked. Also as I mentioned above, the Personnel section follows Wikipedia:Albums#Personnel which requires linking for all materials, regardless of link repetition or common words. I don't think the article is overlinked. I've gone through it tons of times. RB88 (T) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, another guideline I haven't followed :) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:25, 17 January 2010 [114].

Carabane edit

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because all the suggestions made in the peer review have been implemented. I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. Neelix (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but refs 62, 68, and 126 have dead external links. Ref 18 is also dead, but uses an archived page for the "work" param—I think you meant to make that the main url, not the "work" url, because without the archive.org stuff it is exactly the same.
  • All images (and there's a lot—I expect image review to take up some time here) have alt text. For the map of The Gambia with two red dots, clarify that the dots are in the west and center of The Gambia (either in the alt or the prose). The Geography map doesn't have this problem because the dot location is effectively stated in the lead.
  • Check the ref dates: most appear to be Month Day, Year but a few are ISO style and there's even French dates ("Retrieved 8 juin 2008"). Pick one style. (added on 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with all the problems presented by an odd name above except one. I have restored the "work" url for ref 18 and replaced the main url with the archived page. I have also clarified the alt for the map of The Gambia to specify the location of the two dots. The ref dates are now all formatted Month Day, Year. The only problem I'm not sure how to deal with is the three dead external links. How should I fix this problem? Neelix (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, dates look consistent Month Day, Year now. I can't find the dead links in Google cache or the Wayback. Remove them if they're just giving trivial facts; keep them and search around for another source for the cited facts if they're more important. --an odd name 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched ref 62 from a reference to the article online to a reference to the article in print. The external link for ref 68 has been switched to a link to an archived version of the page. The article referred to in ref 126 is also found on another website, so I switched the link. There should be no more dead external links in the article. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All external links work now. --an odd name 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments A nice article, but some niggles on first read I'll have a more detailed read through when I can. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were some typos, and other infelicities, and the style of English varied between BE and AE (eg "colourful", but all units in meters, not metres. Since it's West Africa, I've tried to standardise as BE. I've made these changes, please check
Damn, you're a Canadian - I should have realised, since I went to Nova Scotia in September. I still think BE is more appropriate, but if you want to restore CE, that's not an issue. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metric units need imperial conversions to help the poor old yanks also nautical miles to metric
  • mudflats are exposed so that boats with keels can easily dock. When arriving at Carabane, the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village in 8 to 10 m of water. isn't this contradictory?
  • It's stretching things a bit to call the MacDonald's birding trip an ornithological survey, but the birds are typical of the area, and in my Birds of The Gambia and Senegal, so I don't think the facts are challengeable, and I'm happy to let the ref stand Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly with the French fish ref, I appreciate how difficult it is to get cast iron sources, and I would support you if the refs are challenged, since the content is clearly correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the typos, Jim! I'm quite alright with using British English in the article considering the part of the world being addressed; it was simply more natural for me to write it in Canadian English. I have converted all the remaining measurements so that both metric and imperial are displayed, including the one reference to nautical miles.
The two sentences about boats arriving at the island are not intended to state contradictory things. The first sentence states that it is easy for boats to dock on the island because their keels shift into the exposed mudflats, allowing them to dock securely (ie. there are no exposed rocks to damage the bottom of the boats). The second sentence states that the Joola had to stop about 500 m north of the village because the water surrounding the island is so shallow (ie. the mudflats are relatively close to the surface of the water). Boats can easily dock at the island, but not very close to the island. Do you feel the explanation of this in the article needs to be clarified? Neelix (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no sailor and I assumed mudflats would be a hindrance, not a help, so perhaps clarification would be good; any way, I'm happy to
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the reliability of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the two references linking to Wikipedia articles nor the one linking to an image in the Commons was intended to contain citation information, just helpful links; I was not attempting to suggest that any information in the article was sourced by those references. Nonetheless, I have removed all three references. I have also removed all the "English" tags on the English source references in the article and I have added the "French" tag to ref 34. As for http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/tripreports/Senegal98.html, I don't know what to state as a publisher because the report was never published in print. It was written by Artur Degollada i Soler on July 14, 1998 with the title Lista de las aves observadas en Senegal and is presented to the English-speaking world online by Tina MacDonald. I do not believe that published ornithological studies of the island exist, so this is the most reliable information which is available about birds in Carabane. Neelix (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the inclusion of the MacDonald reference. I have a reliable source, the standard text The Birds of The Gambia and Senegal, which establishes that the listed birds are present in the wider Casamance area, and makes it very likely that the listed source is correct in terms of content. Unless you are challenging the content, I would let the ref stand. Alternatively, I could add the book ref as well, in a supporting role. The worst case scenario, if you are adamant on this, would be to remove An ornithological study in 1998 discovered the following species on the island and replace with The following birds are typical of the Casamance area, plus the book ref. However, this seems a retrograde step, diluting the information specific to the island despite the near certainty that it is actually correct Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's approach this from another angle, who is Tina MacDonald? Is she an orinthologist? If so, she may qualify under WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to her website, Tina MacDonald is a novice birder who has done extensive research and study but has not received formal education in ornithology. Her website, which hosts a large number of unpublished ornithological surveys, is cited on the websites of the University of Richmond, the Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory, the Information Security Group, and the National Audubon Society. Intute says that MacDonald's "outstanding site offers a comprehensive guide to bird watching hotspots around the world." MacDonald does not have a degree in ornithology, however her website is considered credible by established organizations. Neelix (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do this then, throw up the book cite on top of the MacDonald, and we'll consider it close enough for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, supporting book reference added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on the other concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to your second, third, and fourth bullets? If so, I took care of them as soon as you mentioned them; my explanation of how I did so is contained in my first response here. Neelix (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - I am copyediting the article as I go through, as the prose can do with some reworking. Please revert any changes which inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After years of development and community outreach, Carabane is now experiencing a series of trials. - I don't get this, I suspect it doesn't mean legal trials, so what is it referring to?
References come at the end of sentences or clauses (i.e. after a full stop or comma)
Oysters are also a source of income, and Carabane is located in the center of the collection zone, which is one of the reasons why boats formerly called at the island. At one point, oysters were easily transported from Carabane to Dakar, where they were either sold by the pickers themselves or by hawkers. - do the previous refs ref this as well?
Along with the mangrove degradation, the civil unrest, and the inadequate fishery regulation, Casamance has had to deal with the closure of a major industrial complex in Ziguinchor in 2003 which employed more than 2000 people. - does the previous ref (115) reference this as well?
They return to help their parents in the rice fields and participate in religious ceremonies during the dry season, but they tend to settle off the island permanently. - does the previous ref (117) reference this as well?


French anthropologist Louis-Vincent Thomas posed the question of whether Carabane should be saved - is this overly dramatic? Would "preserved" be more appropriate in this sentence and the next?

Looks okay otherwise. Look forward to supporting soon. Might have another look at copyediting. Prose is now better but a few minor improvements might be out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copyediting, Casliber. Here are my responses to your questions:
  1. After years of development and community outreach, Carabane is now experiencing a series of trials. - The word "trials" is used to refer to the social struggles the village has been facing: the declining population, the Casamance Conflict, the sinking of the Joola, etc. Can you think of a way of making this clearer?
  2. Oysters are also a source of income, and Carabane is located in the center of the collection zone, which is one of the reasons why boats formerly called at the island. At one point, oysters were easily transported from Carabane to Dakar, where they were either sold by the pickers themselves or by hawkers. - Ref 113 is the source for this information.
  3. Along with the mangrove degradation, the civil unrest, and the inadequate fishery regulation, Casamance has had to deal with the closure of a major industrial complex in Ziguinchor in 2003 which employed more than 2000 people. - Yes, ref 115 is the source for this information.
  4. They return to help their parents in the rice fields and participate in religious ceremonies during the dry season, but they tend to settle off the island permanently. - Yes, ref 117 is the source for this information
  5. French anthropologist Louis-Vincent Thomas posed the question of whether Carabane should be saved - A direct translation of the title of Thomas's article is "Is it necessary to save Carabane?" Similarly, a direct translation of Diatta's article is "Who is to save Diogué-Nikine-Carabane?" The questions they pose are dramatic, but I suppose we can tone them down. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read the last through a few times, and changed to one verb each. Actually I do think "save" adds something when added right at the end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all the citations are now located after full stops. As for your first bullet, what do you think of changing the word 'trials' to 'difficulties'? Neelix (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'difficulties' is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Neelix (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
    • File:Joola.jpg does not have the original author information.
    • Others seem to check out.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to fix this problem. Going here, I can see the image listed and licensed by Creative Commons, but no original author is given on the website. What should be done? Neelix (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove and tag the image. World66 blanket-marks everything as free, but its disclaimer says it makes no garauntees, so the image could be possibly non-free. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been removed from the article and a tag has been placed on the image recommending its deletion. Neelix (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Tony (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Badly overlinked. Images tiny and too numerous.[reply]

  • Why is "island" linked? In fact, the whole article needs a serious link audit.
  • Why is "WWII" linked? Far too general for this context; can you find a daughter article or a section to link to that is more apposite? If not, unlink.
  • "widely-held"; please see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens.2A.
  • Many of the images are tiny. Take the Animism one: not good res, I admit, but the details are impossible to make out. It's unfair to those with a slow connection, who have a hard time opening the image; for everyone else, it's plain irritating. Why the unreadable customs table? Please put a table in the main text (or a summary or sample from it), since it would have to be rather large to make sense to us. The is far to small to read. The caption for "solar lighting": which wide roads? Surely they're not all like that. And the impression is that solar lighting is used for roads all over the country ... I doubt it. Kayendo: too small. Two paddy-type pics, both tiny. Remove one and make it a little larger. Tony (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the link to island and retargeted the links to the World Wars so that they now direct to the West African theatres. I have removed the hypens in the two instances of "widely-held." I have enlarged the Animism image and removed the French customs table; if there are too many images on the article, this one seems to be the least important. I have also removed the image of the checkerboard-like paddy fields and enlarged the image of the levees protecting the paddy fields. As for the caption on the solar lighting image, the information is correct as is. The only roads on the island are far wider than need be because they were constructed for use by vehicles which never arrived. All the roads on the island employ solar lighting. There is no indication that this is true off the island in other parts of Senegal; I'm not sure how a user would get that impression. Nonetheless, I'm open to suggestions about how to make the wording less ambiguous. I feel that the remaining links and images are appropriate, however I would be willing to remove any which others deem superfluous. Neelix (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; much better. But why is "tax" linked? We know what that means. This is not Wiktionary. Readers are expected to know the language. Why "prerogatives"? They simply make it much less likely that readers will click on "law enforcement", which does go to a specific target: "Law enforcement in Senegal"—nice. The link to "wise old men" is, I have to say, extremely European and historical in focus. Does this put the readers off the scent? Consider piping the article "Jola language" to "their language", not just "language", as a signal that the link-target is specific, not a dictionary term. Can you go through all of the article, please, and ensure the linking is professional? These exercises may help. Tony (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the exercises you indicated and I have attempted to implement them as well as I could throughout the article. If you have further concerns about the linking in the article, please let me know. Neelix (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
I read the Martin Klein reference, but it doesn't seem to say much about slavery in Carabane; I don't see anything there that pertains to slavery in Carabane which isn't already expressed in the article. Other than two comments about runaway slaves, the only information on the topic I can find in the Martin Klein reference states "Carabane was dominated by a métis planter who grew rice and produced lime with slave labor. The slave trade was pursued there openly at first and then clandestinely until the early twentieth century." The Carabane article currently says more than that about slavery on the island: "Arriving on the west African coast in the 15th century, the Portuguese were active in the region from the 16th century onwards, mostly in search of wax, ivory, and slaves." "The Baudin family employed slaves and, despite the declaration of its abolition in the French colonial empire in 1848, this slavery continued on the island until the early 20th century." "While the Mandinka Muslims continued, illegally, to practice slavery and trade, non-Muslim villages tended to come together, accepting the Resident of Carabane as the arbitrator of their disagreements." etc. If anything, the article makes more of the slavery issue than the Martin Klein reference. I would gladly add more information about slavery in Carabane to the article if there was more which could be added, but all the information in the particular reference you mention is already included in the article. Neelix (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support (media licensing and cites not checked) - the article is informative, engaging and comprehensive and contains a wealth of relevant illustrations. I note that image size has been queried, but given the generous number of images I think the small size is sensible so as not to overwhelm the article—the reader can click to see better when interested in a particular view. A few detailed comments follow; I'll probably add others, and may do minor copyedits rather than listing them so please revert if any problems result.

  • The lead's a bit long but I think it's probably justified.
  • Throughout the article, there are rather a lot of common words linked. For example, "The local economy was based mainly on rice". Moreover, the word "rice" has already appeared several times with no link (including an earlier appearance in the same paragraph). The article needs going through to remove unnecessary links per WP:Overlinking.
  • "Signs of erosion have been observed since 1849. The house of the government representative on the island has burned down twice and was rebuilt both times." - two apparently unrelated sentences. A third sentence then explains the connection but this is confusing and the passage should be reworked.
  • "The testimonies of explorers and colonial administrators demonstrate that Carabane has participated in rice cultivation, fishery, trade, and palm wine production for a long time." - "a long time" is unnecessarily vague. At least an order of magnitude should be indicated (perhaps "for centuries"?).
  • "At one time, the island was considered an arid location,[11] where coconuts were the only useful plants likely to flourish and vegetables were difficult to produce.[23] In what is now a tropical climate, vegetation is more abundant than in the north, especially during the wet season." - it's unclear what "in the north" (where there is less abundant vegetation than on the island) refers to.
  • "the Jola people, the ethnic group which remains the most populous on the island to this day." - the last three words are superfluous (and I believe deprecated, although I can't find where I read that).
  • "The ceasefire of 2004 brought relative peace, but in the meantime, the sinking of the Joola in 2002 claimed the lives of many inhabitants of Carabane and cut off much of its ability to engage in trade and accept tourists. In considering the threat of coastal erosion, some fear the worst.[68] After years of development and community outreach, Carabane is now experiencing a series of difficulties.[69] In 1998, the French commune of Bon-Encontre committed to providing Carabane with humanitarian aid, both economically and culturally." - the connection between the consecutive sentences is unclear, as is the nature of the difficulties Carabane is now experiencing, since the chronology reverses through the paragraph from 2004 to 1998.
  • "Along with the mangrove degradation, the civil unrest, and the inadequate fishery regulation, Casamance has had to deal with the closure of a major industrial complex in Ziguinchor in 2003 which employed more than 2000 people." - this should make clear the nature of the major industrial complex and its relevance to the Aquaculture section in which these words appear.

PL290 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all the points you have made above by editing the article; please check my solutions and let me know if they meet with your approval. The only concern you have raised which I have not fully addressed is the overlinking. I have removed all the links to rice except the first, which I retargeted to the Africa section on that article. I have already done a thorough review of the article to remove extraneous links and make generic links more specific. Would it be possible for you to list some of the common terms being linked so I will know which to remove? Neelix (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As requested I will try to list a few examples. I may be incorrect, but just picking some at random I have the impression that some or all of the following may be unnecessarily linked: rain, farmers, vegetables, peanut, coconuts, palm trees, clay, straw, mud bricks, marshy, oyster, drinking water, humidity, oranges. However, judgement by editors is necessary according to the topic and article, so I will simply leave the comment open for the nominator and other reviewers to take any further action if deemed appropriate. Thank you for your responses; all my concerns have been met. PL290 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your extensive copyediting. I have removed the links to the common terms you listed. Neelix (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Karanacs. Overall, this is a very good article and I am happy to see such fine work on a topic that is underrepresented on Wikipedia. I have a few quibbles that I expect will be easy for you to fix.

  • I saw quite a few claims that need to be properly cited. I'm not sure if this is a problem of not having a citation at all for the claims, or if the citation style used needs to be changed. These are the passages that I believe need to be sourced:
    • The lack of clay is the reason that architecture on the island employs straw wrapped around wooden frames more often than banco mud bricks. This type of architecture is also common in the villages of Mlomp and Seleki.
    • These tangles help retain soil, a process which expands the island where the power of tidal race would normally have the opposite effect
    • and the information it contains remains valuable today.
    • Tourists are not as attracted to the island for its mangroves as for the coconut trees which line its beaches, featured on many of Carabane's postcards. These palm trees are a valued resource on the island.
    • particularly because the inhabitants of Gorée were threatened with losing part of their resources with the imminent demise of the slave trade, and also because of their competition with Saint-Louis.
    • By the following year, the Christian community had performed 1100 baptisms, as well as many catechumen.
    • was insufficient staffing, cost of living was rising, and the harsh climate began to wear on the buildings. In 1920, the diocese had, in addition to Carabane, thirteen churches and approximately thirty-five chapels.
    • the Carabane church was one of the buildings selected, some members blamed the colonial administration for having facilitated the expansion of Islam in the country
    • Although many of them were Wolofs and Muslims, they did not know the Jola country and its traditions. The periods of drought that ravaged the Sahel in the 1970s forced peanut farmers to move to regions where rice was all that grew
    • In particular, the location of the island does not allow easy access to serious or urgent medical assistance. The pirogue-ambulance funded by the regional council is used only as a last resort
    • . The main portion is manufactured from a very hard wood measuring 2 to 2.5 metres (6 ft 7 in to 8 ft 2 in) in length. The kayendo is mainly used to plough rice fields, but is also used for other purposes, such as excavation and construction
    • Badji Malang, a local painter, potter, sculptor, and poet, has created a camp in the area.
  • The house of the government representative on the island has burned down twice and was rebuilt both times. The subsequent erosion is evident when one considers that the original location of the house is now flooded, even at low tide -> Did the fires directly impact the erosion (that is what the "subsequently" implied to me)? If not, do we really need to discuss the fires or can this be framed more generally?
  • Should have conversions from degrees C to degrees F
  • In a few places, the article may be overly detailed. Is is necessary to provide the name of the report (and the translation) that Bertrand-Bocande submitted?
  • If the oldest inhabitants of Casamance are the Bainuk people, the left bank of the mouth of the river was mostly populated by the Jola - Is there a question of whether the Bainuk people were the oldest inhabitants? Is the fact that the Jola inhabited the left bank dependent on whether the Bainuk were the oldest inhabitants in the region? this may need to be reworded.
  • I'm not sure how the point about poor sanitation fits into the paragraph on rice/lime. Can this be explained a bit more?
  • I think "employed slaves" is probably a bit of an oxymoron. Can this be reworded?
  • Was the Baudin brother really JOhn, or was his name actually Jean (the French version)? I see that both spellings are used.
  • Is this François Mendy School or François Mendy Ecole?

Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of your nine main bullets, I believe that I have fully addressed the last eight by way of my edits. Please let me know if there is anything left to do with them. As for your first bullet, the sourcing confusion with various statements, I have only clarified the sourcing for some of them. Of the twelve, I have clarified the sourcing for #'s 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12. I am confident that #'s 1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 are sourced by references which are included near them, however I do not have access to those sources and therefore cannot verify that this is the case. While the same may be true of #'s 3 and 4, I think it likely that they are not sourced. What would you suggest I do? Neelix (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very prompt response. I've stricken the comments that you've addressed. I am concerned about the statements that still have no sourcing. These that I highlighed (there were more unsourced statements in the article) really need a source, as they are expressing opinions or reasons for events. If you can't find any other sources to cover these facts, they may need to be removed from the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to find alternate sourcing for these seven statements, however I have been unsuccessful. I have contacted Ji-Elle, the main contributor of the original article on the French Wikipedia, to determine the sourcing for these statements. Ji-Elle was very prompt in responding to my request and has agreed to look into it within the next couple days. Can the conclusion of the FAC wait until Ji-Elle gets back to me with this information? If not, would removing these seven statements from the article be an acceptable temporary solution? Neelix (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard back from Ji-Elle about four of the remaining seven statements requiring citation and I have added the citations to the article accordingly. The remaining three to be sourced are #'s 2, 3, and 4. I will add these citations when Ji-Elle gets back to me. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ji-Elle has gotten back to me with citations for the remaining unsourced statements. I have added the citations to the article accordingly. I believe that the entire article is now fully sourced with clear citations. Neelix (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Neelix's recent edits have satisfied my sourcing concerns. Thank you for your hard work - this is an excellent article. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

(ec) Support, assuming Neelix's edits have addressed K's questions. Fascinating piece. A couple of my own minor queries:

  • Lead: "Although Carabane was once a regional capital in its own right, the village no longer fits into the social structure decreed by the Senegalese government". I read the very interesting, if somewhat complex, section that this is intended to summarise. The lead sentence does not however make sense to me. It appears to be about two unrelated points, so the use of "Although...," is inappropriate. Alternatively, the intended meaning could be "Although Carabane was once a regional capital in its own right, the village no longer qualifies as a capital under Senegalese government policy." One way or the other, this sentence needs tweaking.
  • "If the oldest inhabitants of Casamance are the Bainuk people, the left bank of the mouth of the river was mostly populated by the Jola". I didn't understand this sentence. Is the intended meaning: "While the oldest inhabitants of Casamance may be the Bainuk people, the left bank of the mouth of the river was mostly populated by the Jola"? If so, suggest this be amended accordingly.
  • I have reduced overlinking: feel free to check the balance and reduce further if you think it's worth it. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copy editing and reduction of overlinking. I have reworded the two sentences you mentioned; let me know if they are still unclear. Neelix (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better - i have changed "social" to "administrative" structure as being what I think is more accurate language. Otherwise all OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern; this article was a translation from the French wiki article. Were all of the original sources consulted by the nominator, and all text verified? There were serious WP:LAYOUT issues that seem to have come from the French version, and why are website publishers in italics? Also, books need publishers. I would like to see a French speaker check some of the sources for verification. There is also text sandwiched between images in many sections, including "Historic sites" (see WP:MOS#Images). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken care of the missing publishers in the bibliography section; most were present but were accidentally placed in the 'editor' rather than 'publisher' field. You say that there were layout issues; do some persist? I do not know how to unitalicize the website publishers; is it possible that this is a function of the template? Also, what do you suggest to avoid image sandwiching? The primary editor of the French article, Ji-Elle, has reviewed the article and complimented me on the translation. Which sources do you feel need to be checked for verification? I believe Ji-Elle would be willing to check them for us. Neelix (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the layout. I still see quite a bit of text that needs citation (opinions and numbers), and the concern with a translation is that, unless the main editor has access to and has reviewed all of the original sources, how does s/he know that the article is comprehensive and/or accurately reflects the sources? FAs cannot be built via translation. Can the French author not send you all of the source material? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure Ji-Elle would be willing to send me the source material, however it would be much easier for Ji-Elle to simply verify that the English article accurately relates the information found in that material and state so here. Would you consider this an acceptable solution? Neelix (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will have to be resolved by reviewer consensus, and it is troubling that none of the reveiwers raised the issue. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT; in this case, the English article got its text from the French Wiki, not from the original sources. Translated articles, in which the translator does not access the original sources, by definition cannot meet WP:V, a core policy, which assumes the writer accessed the original sources. The translation relies on the original source of the fr.wiki, and Wiki is not a reliable source. An additional issue is that WP:NONENG must be accounted for. A third problem is that WP:V prefers (but does not require) English-language sources; was a search done for information in English? For example, this source contains some info that seems at odds with article content; I don't know if it's a good source. Another English source. Not sure about this one or this one, but English sources of info should be available. This entire issue needs to be revisited by supporting reviewers and resolved; how it can be resolved will depend on reviewer consensus. Yet another issue is that the article still contains numbers and opinions that are unsourced (and I came across a sentence that started with a number-- it should be recast so that it doesn't start with a number). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just delete all articles based on translations, and abolish the projects which encourage such translations? Your view, which appears to go beyond actual policies in several cases, isn't followed in even 1% of those translations, I'll bet. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it's an issue for reviewer consensus, but it is not disputed that Wiki is not a reliable source, and Featured articles must be based on reliable sources. Translations may be getting by on Wiki, even though they violate core policy, but FA standards are higher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the various Wikipedias are not a reliable source. But I'm assuming that this article does cite reliable sources. That's what you need to go by here; whether or not the cited sources support the statements in this article. It doesn't matter in the least whether any particular editor has read those sources; what matters is whether they back up what is said. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that User:Ji-Elle is, in a very minor way, a contributor to this article (putting the star on the interwiki link). From what has been said here, it appears that she has read the cited sources, and that she has read this English article and understands it well enough to think that it accurately reflects the sources. It would appear that she is competent to assess that, even if she is not comfortable enough with the English to do the editing here. So, would it satisfy your objections if she posted a statement to that effect on the article's talk page? I see no reason why it couldn't be in French, at least with respect to any detailed analysis. And Neelix or someone else could even provide an English translation there if she does use French. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, whether we should set the precedent of elevating a translation to featured status, when the translator did not have access to the original sources, is a matter for reviewer consensus. But before we can even consider that, WP:NONENG, the inclusion of English-language sources to the extent they are available, the sandwiching of text between images, and the unsourced text need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown nothing to be contrary to WP:NONENG. We don't need wild speculation here. Furthermore, issues about images or whatever should be dealt with separately, not in this thread. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. Anyway, I've raised this at WT:FAC for broader discussion; as delegate, I don't want the position of establishing a new FA precedent in the absence of broader discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia: I have added citations to all the statements to which you affixed the "cn" template. Please let me know if there are other statements in the article for which you would like clearer citations. Also, you mention in one of your edit summaries that overlinking still exists within the article. This issue has already been addressed at length. Would you be able to specify which terms have been inappropriately linked? Neelix (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is particularly objectionable because at the time that Jimfbleak made those changes, there were no metre spellings on the edit page of the article. Yes, there were "-metre" spellings in the article, but every one of them was the result either of ignorance, or of deliberately improper use of the black box {{convert}}. That template defaults to British spellings, and you need to jump through hoops to get it to comply with the existing usage within an article. That wasn't done by whoever first put those convert templates in this page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not being accused of bad faith here. I picked up what appeared to me to be a mix of AE and BE and standardised to the latter as being more appropriate for West Africa, where BE is standard. When I realised the main editor was Canadian, I offered to revert my edits to CE, but he accepted the changes as more appropriate also. I didn't put in the convert templates, which personally I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, and I read "-metre". Why are my actions, which I offered to reverse, "objectionable" - or is it just that changing apparent AE spelling is blasphemy by definition? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that you saw "metres". I think I'll stick around to make sure that every article going through this FA process gets reviewed for various templates (many of the infobox templates do the same thing, though spelling changes are less likely to occur there because they are more likely to use symbols for the units of measure) sneaking in varieties-of-English changes.
Another problem is that the templates sometimes cannot even be set to give the proper spelling. For example, the sp=us parameter in {{convert}} doesn't even work in cases such as this:
  • {{convert|3.7|t|lb|sp=us}} which yields 3.7 metric tons (8,200 lb).
Despite that having the sp=us set, it gives us a spelling much more foreign to American English than "litre" is. The only solution is to remove the template and enter the measurements properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with respect to national varieties of English, it is only for articles closely related to English-speaking countries for which we look at the variety of English used there. For French-speaking countries, or whatever, the location isn't supposed to be a factor. We also don't use the spelling "meter" just because an article deals with Germany, or Norway, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or Iceland, or whatever.
That convert template is an incredibly complex behemoth waiting to pounce on the unwary. Good grief, it takes thousands of subtemplates, each on a separate template page, for it to work. I wish more editors were like you, realizing that they are out of their league and avoiding it. Few editors are willing to invest the time to learn even the rudiments of its complexity, and perhaps nobody understands everything it might do. (There is even a way to get "3.7 metric tons (8,200 lb)*" as a result, but you cannot do so by setting the sp= parameter if you use the proper symbol t for metric tons to identify the units.) Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that, even in its intended task, the template sometimes converts narrow ranges to give nonsense like 97–97 cm. More to the point, what action are you suggesting? Although it was not intended, BE is not inappropriate for this article, and is accepted by the Canadian nominator. Are you asking that the Canadian English spellings be restored as a matter of principle? If not, please clarify what you want me or the nominator to do (I wouldn't revert the spelling unless the main editor agreed) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, of course. Despite the apparent beliefs of some of the denizens of these pages, the nominator does not own this article. British English would not be inappropriate; but neither is American English. So our rules are that it shouldn't have been changed. Certainly not without any discussion on the article's talk page about it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RETAIN is a behavioural guideline and not a valid reason to oppose. WP:RETAIN specifically governs the case where the dialect choice makes no difference to the quality of the article, and is an arbitrary means of settling disputes and should not be used to create them. An honest mistake was made and the dialect got changed. Changing it back purely to satisfy wiki-pedantry will not improve the article or make anyone happier. At FA, we review the current text of the article for conformance to content guidelines. Issues with editor behaviour, or aspects of article history are not relevant and should be discussed elsewhere if at all. Colin°Talk 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are hoist on your own petard. The changes took place during the FA review. So by your own admission, you should be restoring it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)01:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bibliography contains Mark Peter and Peter Mark; which is it? (please put in alphabetical order) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A WP:MOSNUM (1300 vs. 1,300) review is needed throughout, as is WP:MOSDATE#Precise language (avoid the use of terms like "today", which becomes outdated, instead include as of dates ... I would add precise language myself, but I can't read the sources. Words like "today", "now" and "currently" occur a couple dozen times in the article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, and WP:ENDASH reviews. Please let me know if there are other reviews of the article you feel need to be done. Neelix (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments continued. I've done a major cleanup of the reference formatting (note that for cite web, use the publisher paramater instead of work) and this has exposed some additional concerns. Several of the references are without publishers. In one case (Gregg...) a book does not include a page number. I also spotted several other sentences that need to be cited. I've added {{fact}} tags to these in the article. I'll be going through the sources more thoroughly over the next few days and will post additional comments here. Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • no title or author for Teranga, Nov-Dec 2007
  • What makes [116] a reliable source? This appears to be a self-published website.
  • many of the journal articles reference a range of pages rather than a single page (or two). Can you verify that the whole range is the appropriate citation for these facts, or should it be more specific?
  • The Cormier-Salem reference from 1989 has a weird date - can you please verify this
  • There are two references to Marie-Christine Cormier-Salem and one to Marie-Christine Cormier. Can we please verify that the one without the Salem is correct?
  • What makes Kassoumay a reliable source? In a brief look at the site, I couldn't tell who publishes it - it seems like a tourist website.
  • The doctoral thesis needs to be better cited - the publisher is not correct. Has this thesis been used as a source by any other scholars?
  • This reference needs a publisher listed: Jacques Diatta (January 7, 2007). "Qui pour sauver Diogué-Nikine-Carabane?". http://wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://diembering-aadd.com/index.php?option=com_content%26task=view%26id=13%26Itemid=1. Retrieved November 19, 2009.
  • needs a publisher: Denise Savigneau (May 1938). "Rapport n° 17 (La Casamance)". http://www.hull.ac.uk/savineau/reports/french/rapport17.rtf. Retrieved January 19, 2009.

Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the reference formatting cleanup; the reference and bibliography sections look great. A substantial number of concerns have been raised over the past few hours. Considering the slow trickle of suggestions for improvement over the past month that this article has been undergoing its featured article candidacy, I must admit that I am overwhelmed. I will attempt to address the new concerns as swiftly as possible, however the shear number of them may prohibit the sort of quick responses and solutions which I have been keen to supply throughout the past month. I have notified Ji-Elle about the concerns which have been raised; Ji-Elle is fluent in English and may be able to respond to some of these questions more aptly than I. I can address four of the issues right now and will attempt as many others as I can tomorrow.
  1. I have added the title and author to the Teranga citation; it was included in another citation already.
  2. The only thing that the DaKite source is cited for is the information that kitesurfing takes place in Carabane. I would expect that a website published by a kitesurfing company (DaKite) which offers kitesurfing in Carabane would be an appropriate source for this information, however I can look for another if you think it necessary.
  3. I have added the publisher to the Diatta citation.
  4. I have added the publisher to the Savigneau citation.
Neelix (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified that the Marie-Christine Cormier citation is correct. I don't know why an author would use different forms of her surname on different articles published in the same year, however we must go based on the citation information presented on the sources themselves wherever possible. Also, which doctoral thesis requires supplimentary citation information? Petit or Guilera? As for the Kassoumay website, it is published by a company called Kassoumay. They offer various tourism-related services in the Casamance area. I would expect that it is a reliable source for the same reason that DaKite is a reliable source, however I can look for another to source the information it currently sources in the article if you believe it necessary. Neelix (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the page number to the Gregg reference. Have you identified citations lacking publishers other than the ones you list above? If not, I believe all the citations are now supplied with publishers. Neelix (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ji-Elle has gotten back to me with much information, the most important item of which is that the date for the Cormier-Salem 1989 reference is correct. I have also been able to add citations to the two statements to which you affixed the "fact" template. Neelix (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for verifying all that! I've finished what I'm planning to do of the ref cleanup. More questions/comments:

  • The book Senegal et Gambie needs an author, if possible
  • Several books don't have ISBNs listed.
  • Need a publisher for Entrepreneurs en Vedette
  • Please go through all the references closely to make sure that I didn't miss anything. Journals and books should be listed in the sources section, and only the reference (author name/title and date) and page number in references. Please check also for formatting - no extra characters, should be periods after the page numbers, etc.
  • Please make sure that both doctoral theses are clearly marked as such (in English). The catalan language one is the only one I had recognized as a thesis, and the publisher on it doesn't seem right.

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I spent some time today examining various English-language sources that I had partial access to so that I would have a better idea of whether the article was truly comprehensive. (My next step is to examine some of the French sources, but I don't think I have time for that today.) I was pleased to note how highly some of the sources used in the article already have been rated by their pears (Louis-Vincent Thomas and Christian Roche have been cited in many of the sources I consulted). I had trouble finding English-language sources that discussed much of anything beyond the history. My overall impression from this is that the history of the article does cover most of the key facts, but leaves out a lot of the context.

  • In general, areas that I think may need more fleshing out are: (Note that I don't know for sure if there is information available on each of these points - this is intended to be a list of suggestions for further research)
    • the slave trade - this was a huge part of African history in general, and there is very little information given here on how this might have affected Carabane, and whether Carabane's experience was different from that of other parts of the region.
    • colonial competition - although it is mentioned that there was some competition among different colonies, we're not told why, or how this might have played out, or even what the result was.
    • colonial supremacy - we're given a brief overview of the fact that the people didn't take to French authority very well, but not told much detail.
    • sinking of the Joola - this is mentioned in several places in passing. Can we get a few more details?
  • recent violence - this is mentioned, but little context is given in how the local conflict relates to what is going on in the rest of the region.
  • List of sources that may prove useful. Note that the links are to Google books, but the entire books are not accessible. You do not have to use these sources - they are mainly suggestions as to the type of information that might be available.
    • This book has some information that may be useful about how Bertrand-Bocande' gained recognition of French sovereignity. - [117] Robert Aldrich, Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion, published by Palgrave
    • A tiny bit of info about French-Portuguese competition - [118] Boubacar Barry. Senegambia and the Atlantic Slave Trade, published by Cambridge University Press, 1998
    • I can't access this book, but I suspect it may have some useful information - [119] - Alice Joy Hamer - Tradition and change: a social history of Diola women (Southwest Senegal) in the Twentieth Century - University of Michigan
    • A quick search of the Peter Mark source "Portuguese" style... on Google books indicates that there is more information in that book that could be useful
    • Mark's other book, A cultural, economic, and religious history of the Basse Casamance since 1500 is listed in the references but not used. I suspect this will have a great deal of useful information.
    • This book [120] also has information about Jola/Diola culture and one modern perspective on whether the Casamance is actually part of Senegal. This perspective is not really seen in the article.
    • Klein's book Slavery and colonial rule in French West Africa is only used once in the article. Per the limited preview on Google books, this may provide more information about how the slave trade affected Carabane
    • This [121] has further information about the language spoken in Carabane - Thomas Albert Sebeok, Current Trends in linguistics: Linguistics in sub-Saharan Africa
    • Here's a reference to a medical article that mentioned an epidemic that killed all Europeans in Carabane [122]
    • There's no preview of this book, but I wonder if it would be useful - 'Shrines of the slave trade: Diola religion and society in precolonial Senegambia By Robert Martin Baum

Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things on the existing sources:

  • Reference 17 (Naufrage de transbordeur ....) needs authors listed (see source for those). It looks as if this is an official report that is hosted on Kassoumay but is not necessarily published by them - this needs to be made more clear in the citation. Same with ref 101 ("Commission d'enquete technique...")
  • Reference 20 is a deadlink. I was trying to check to see if the source was in French or English, because I suspect if it was published by the US State Department the title should be in English.
  • I haven't seen the Teranga source. If it is primarily written as a giant ad for Carabane (which may be the case considering it is published by Air Senegal), then it is likely not an appropriate source for Tourists are not as attracted to the island for its mangroves as for the coconut trees .
  • I'm not sure whether Kassoumay (a tourist site) is appropriate to use to source the fish/reptiles that can be found on the island.
  • Ref 39 is not correct. Scientific Linux is the name of the software used on the web server, not the web server itself. This site appears to actually be (http://iodeweb1.vliz.be/odin/) OceanDocs, a repository for scientific papers. The particular paper cited here mentions that it was a paper presented at a convention. The convention would likely be the publisher?
  • Instead of using the abbreviation PEPAM, can the publisher field state the full name of the agency?
  • ref 74 (French) Jacques Diatta (January 7, 2007). "Qui pour sauver Diogué-Nikine-Carabane?". Association d'Aide au Développement du Diembering. http://wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://diembering-aadd.com/index.php?option=com_content%26task=view%26id=13%26Itemid=1. Retrieved November 19, 2009. ) is a deadlink

Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sad to say this, especially considering how close this FAC appears to be to its completion, however my commitments outside Wikipedia have caught up with me and I will not be able to begin addressing the remaining concerns for at least another week. When I nominated this article back in November, I had hoped that I could finish addressing the reviewers' concerns over the holidays before things started up again in the new year. If the FAC can wait another week or two for me to do the remaining legwork, I would be grateful, however I understand that this FAC has already gone on for nearly two months. If the FAC cannot wait that long and the remaining concerns are sufficient to keep the article from being promoted, I will simply have to renominate the article at a future date. Thank you for all your hard work and constructive criticism on the article thus far. Neelix (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping the FAC open until I was able to begin addressing these concerns. With respect to the concerns listed under the heading "A few more things on the existing sources":
  1. I have added the authors and publishers for ref 17 and ref 101.
  2. Ref 20 doesn't appear to be a deadlink to me. When I click on it, the webpage loads properly. Despite having been produced by the US State Department, the citation is correct; the title is in French.
  3. I haven't been successful in discovering any other sources which document the population of reptiles and fish located on or surrounding the island. Is the Kassoumay citation insufficient?
  4. I have switched the publisher for ref 39 to the name of the conference.
  5. I have unabbreviated PEPAM.
  6. Like ref 20, ref 74 doesn't appear to be a deadlink when I click on it. Is this possibly a browser problem?
I will try to address your other concerns throughout the rest of today. Neelix (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the concerns listed under the heading "More questions/comments":
  1. I have added an author to the Sénégal et Gambie citation.
  2. I have added ISBNs to all of the citations for books which were published after 1966 (when ISBNs were first introduced).
  3. I'm not sure which citation you're referring to when you say "Entrepreneurs en Vedette". Would you mind providing the ref number?
  4. I've gone through the reference and bibliography sections, adding more citation information in places and making some corrections. I believe the citations are well-formatted now.
  5. I'm not sure how to mark the two doctoral theses as such. Should I simply append "- a doctoral thesis" to the citations?
There was also one concern I forgot to address in the section under the heading "A few more things on the existing sources": the Teranga source. I have ordered this article through my local library, however it will likely take some time to arrive. Until it does, if you are sufficiently concerned about the advertising nature of the article, the statement that Tourists are not as attracted to the island for its mangroves as for the coconut trees which line its beaches, as featured on many of Carabane's postcards can simply be removed from the article; this information is not especially important. I do, however, believe that the article is an appropriate source for the statement that Some tour guides falsely claim that this is Auguste Léopold Protet, no matter whether the article is entirely an advertisement or not. Neelix (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the journal articles and book sources you have gathered about Carabane. Thank you for taking the time to do that. I have added information about Bertrand-Bocandé from Greater France to the article, and I have added information about French-Portuguese competition from Senegambia and the Atlantic Slave Trade to the article. I have looked over Identity Matters: Ethnic and Sectarian Conflict, but I'm not sure what to add to the article from it. The information it contains does not appear to be specific to Carabane and might be better suited to the Jola people article or the Casamance article. The question of whether Casamance is part of Senegal or not is already found on the article in a sense more specific to Carabane: the statement that the island no longer fits into any category of the administrative structure decreed by the Senegalese government. I think the article already has enough information about the Jola and the broader Casamance area and that having more would be tangential to the topic at hand. Nonetheless, if you strongly disagree with my assessment, I would be happy to include more information on either of these topics. The other books you mention are not fully accessible online, therefore I would have to order them through my local library in order to add information from them to the article. I am willing to do this, however it would take some time for me to receive these sources. Does the article require the additional contextualization that these sources might offer in order to attain featured article status? Neelix (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – A straight translation from the French Wikipedia without reading the original sources should not be made a featured article on the English Wikipedia. Simple as that. A nominator should know what is in their sources, both for writing the article itself and for responding to questions about the content. That simply cannot happen when the nominator doesn't even understand the language the sources are in. We, therefore, are left guessing as to whether the sources have been well-represented, in content and tone. That just isn't good enough. All of the sources should be checked by someone who understands the languages used; preferably, the person would be an uninvolved third party. Apparently this is happening now, but I won't feel comfortable seeing this be represented as our best work until that process is complete. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that I understand your objection. You say that a "straight translation from the French Wikipedia without reading the original sources should not be made a featured article on the English Wikipedia," however all the original sources have been read by Ji-Elle, an editor of both the French and English Wikipedias. You also state that "the nominator doesn't even understand the language the sources are in." This is not true; I am well-versed in the French language, as my translation of this extensive article should demonstrate. All this discussion assumes that I have not engaged with the original sources; admittedly, I have not fully read all of them, but I have gone through most as most are available online. I have found no inconsistencies. We are not "left guessing as to whether the sources have been well-represented, in content and tone" because Ji-Elle can easily vouch for the accurate representation of all the sources, including those sources to which I do not have access. Neelix (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you get Ji-Elle to make a statement here? Not that I distrust you, but I would like to hear it from Ji-Elle him/herself that they can "vouch for the accurate representation of all the sources, including those sources to which [you] do not have access". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted Ji-Elle, and she has responded below in the section entitled "News from France". Neelix (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The translation may be accurate, and it may reflect the sources, but it is far from idiomatic. One example from many: "Solar lighting operates on the wide roads even though there are no cars on the island to drive on them." --Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your objection. What is wrong with the sentence you quote from the article? Neelix (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try this one then: "Several brief interim governments succeeded after Vargas's suicide". What does "succeeded" mean to you? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll simply point out that the subject of the sentence I first objected to is "solar lighting", which doesn't "operate" on any roads, wide or narrow, and "them" appears to be referring back to the subject of the sentence, implying that there are no cars on the island able to drive over the solar lighting. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I'm missing something obvious; I still don't understand. The quotation about Vargas's suicide does not appear in the article. Neelix (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, my apologies. I was looking at two articles at once and got them confused. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand a little better; the use of the word "them" is ambiguous and might be reworded to "these roads." I am less clear about the problem with the word "operates"; what do you mean by your statement that solar lighting "doesn't 'operate' on any roads"? Neelix (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does, but it sounds rather strange, and I can't imagine anyone ever saying it like that. More usual would be to say something like "Although there are no cars on the island to drive on them, the wide roads are illuminated by solar lighting". --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the sentence in question on the article; please let me know if it meets with your approval. You began this discussion stating that this sentence is only one of many which need to be altered. I notice that you have since altered many sentences in the article yourself. Do any remain which you still deem lacking in clarity? Neelix (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest Neelix, I'm teetering on the verge of striking my oppose. Not sure I'm yet ready to support ... but let me take another look through. It's an informative article that I enjoyed reading in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this article using metric or imperial as its primary units of measurement? I'd have thought metric, but some sections are using imperial, whereas others use metric. Really ought to be consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just switched the only instance of imperial I could find to metric. Do you see others which remain unconverted? Neelix (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bonjour tout le monde,

My English is poor, I admit. Nevertheless, I was able to appreciate the translation made by Neelix and I did read through this discussion page. Unfortunately I must have missed something, as I can't understand what is wrong with the sources, according to your standards...

Bien cordialement, Ji-Elle (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the sources that I can see, it's just that not all of us are able to read French. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note on Ji-Elle's talk page; if she happens to speak Spanish, I will try to explain better the concerns there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All of my earlier reservations about this article have been cheerfully dealt with thanks largely to the nominator's hard work and persistence. Deserves to be promoted now I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:24, 12 January 2010 [123].

International Space Station edit

Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to, for the fourth occasion, put International Space Station forward for consideration as a Featured Article, as it represents a Vital topic in what I feel is a comprehensive and accurate way, with a plethora of references and a format which meets all requirements in the Manual of Style. Since the last FAC was prematurely closed six or so months ago, a lot more work has been completed on this article, including a sixth Peer Review which identified and fixed a number of issues, a copyedit and a general cleanup of citation formatting. A few more sections have been added and a couple of daughter articles have sprouted to assist in ensuring the article covers every pertinent topic, and the article has been kept updated to match operations and continuing assembly of the station on orbit. I hope that, on this fourth occasion, the FAC process will find this article suitable, and look forward to everyone's comments. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The content is comprehensive and presented in a balanced fashion, and the prose engages the reader. The photos are fantastic! (sdsds - talk) 08:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article is well written and includes lots of comprehensive information. I second Sdsds on the photos. I feel the article meets the FA requirements. DR04 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good from the technical view.

  • Ref dates are at least mostly Day Month Year; verify that no more Month Day, Year or ISO style dates have crept in (I changed one).

--an odd name 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – My concerns with the article were raised during the last peer review and some follow-on comments. Those were addressed satisfactorily and so I'm happy to lend my support for an FA status on this article.—RJH (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colds7ream (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article has improved greatly. Reads well and above explanation of sources looks good to me. --mav 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article is an interesting read and comprehensive. The sources identified above as being potentially problematic seem to me to satisfy our reliability/verifiability requirements. That said, should others feel otherwise, I think the statements they support could generally be removed entirely without ill effect to the article as a whole. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments re certain sources (a partial response to Sandy's plea):
  • http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/ - Looks unreliable to me, in the sense that the reliability of content is unclear, and i couldn't find recommendations in favour of it (i did, however, after chasing some links down rabbit holes, find a less than happy customer of a claimed founder of the site). I would find an alternative source or ditch the relevant content.
  • OK, I've removed this, having discovered this is also described in the ISS reference guide. Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob Park - Assuming his CV is not fake, then this material is reliable to establish the opinions of Bob Park: it seems fine to cite it when reporting him as one of the ISS's critics and why he was a critic. I'm not convinced it's such a great idea to be relying on this material to establish facts. Thus the second instance of footnote 25 i think is not appropriate as a reliable source. I think the first instance is problematic in terms of undue weight. Park's very brief comments on his page are used as a cite for this: "This large cost has meant that the ISS programme has been the target of various criticisms over its financing, research capabilities and technical design". The ISS is one of the largest scientific and engineering endeavours of modern civilisation. If I'm going to see a citation for criticism, it should be much more heavyweight than an individual physicist. This is egregious undue weight. For criticisms to be mentioned in the lead, i'd be expecting open letters from scientific societies, or an editorial in Nature, or a critical congressional report. Anything less than that isn't serious in this content, i would suggest.
  • Would something like this be more appropriate: [128]? We can't just not have a section on criticism, as this would present us with a heap of bias... Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I moved the Bob Park reference so that it only cites for statements made directly by him, and added in the Popular Mechanics reference to replace it in the other locations. Colds7ream (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pop Mechanics reference is a significant improvement, and certainly avoids reliability questions. I'd want to think more about whether the criticisms are being given undue weight, but one quick point that would deal with this emerges from the PM article itself: it says at one point "The other group, an independent review committee appointed by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS), issued an even more stinging rebuke". If you can find such a source and cite it directly, as well as the Popular Mechanics piece, i would say that ties up this issue pretty well. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that's it. Good. Verification of this section is now significantly improved. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing this theme, I tried to click through to cite 111 ("A waste of space"), and the link didn't work for me. i then went to 115 ("The trouble with space stations") - and realised the source was another one where reliability has been questioned during the review process. My quick glance suggests this does not rate as a reliable source. In the case of the article's report on "a panel session last week at the Military and Aerospace Programmable Logic Device (MAPLD) International Conference", it would be better to go to refereed publications by some of the esteemed contributors like Roger Launius. If there are no such publications covering criticisms of the ISS, that should tell us something :-)
  • I've replaced "A Waste of Space" with the Popular Mechanics reference - will this do as a published editorial? Will keep looking nevertheless. Colds7ream (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also removed ref 115 and the statement it was supporting. Colds7ream (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good. Do keep looking (and see my other reply above) but this is looking better. I may try and come back for another look in next two days. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get to the other source issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coming back to sources: one of the web sites queried by both Ealdgyth and SandyG was http://www.glinx.com/~sherm/spacestation_observation.htm. Colds7ream's response is essentially "anyone can verify its reliablity by checking the site's predictions against their own observations of the sky". I note neither Ealdgyth nor Sandy have responded to this argument by striking their concern, so I presume they don't accept this argument as adequate. Colds7ream's argument did put me in mind of one of the examples of acceptable common knowledge: "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property". I actually wondered whether this could apply here, but if not, is it not at least enough as a reliability test for the citation in question? I'd be interested in Ealdgyth or Sandy G's response. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, although it could possibly be left uncited under common knowledge, if you cite it, it needs to be to a reliable source. The problem could be solved by appending in addition the NASA site that verifies it, and moving Heaven-above to an external link, as external link requirements are lower than source requirements. Or it could be left uncited and use the common knowledge thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've removed the Glinx link regarding sightings as common knowledge, and added the NASA applet as a supplementary source in the infobox to back up Heavens-Above. Anything else left to do? Colds7ream (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing this dicussion. I was looking for an alternative source for the claim that the ISS is now visible during daylight. At present this is sourced to Spaceweather.com. Reliability was queried, and the fact that the site's author also works as a contributor to some of NASA's online material has not so far led the reviewer to strike their concern. I haven't come up with an alternative source, but while looking I found this, which appears to show that the European Space Agency thinks Heavens-above is so reliable, they use it to help the public find the ISS, rather than build their own app. It is likewise recommended by the Western Australian observatory. For me this seals the reliability of Heavens-above, so if it is needed as a cite for anything, go ahead.
  • A partial response to Ealdgyth. It seems strange that we are prepared to allow "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property" as a basis for unreferenced facts, but not to allow that as a grounds for contributing to assessing the reliability of a source for a referenced fact. I don't agree on this. My view is that if a plain site observation can be made that confirms something claimed by a source, that should be counted in the source's favour in terms of reliability. I am not suggesting that it is enough on its own, but it should not be disregarded.
  • Back to the 'visible in daylight' claim. First, this is again able to be substantiated by "plain sight" observation - as is demonstrated by a google search, that turns up various blogs and even youtube videos showing the phenomenon. However, I dislike the approach taken in response to my previous suggestion, which implies no citation is better than an allegedly unreliable citation. One day the ISS will be de-orbited, and "plain sight" will no longer apply. The best I can offer so far is Crikey articles posted by journalist Ben Sandilands. Crikey in general is certainly reliable, and Sandilands has posted this.
  • I had been all set to oppose on the grounds of limited use of published books and articles, then I read Colds7ream's comments at the last Peer Review, and was pursuaded. Not sure if I'll have time to look at remaining reliable source issues, but i think they've been narrowed down to a small enough number that i would not let them prevent promotion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not write policies, I just try to point them out for others. Don't forget the standard at FAC isn't just meeting WP:V or WP:RS, it's "high quality" that fits with the subject. And, unfortunately, the standard isn't that statements MUST be cited, even if to a less than stellar source, but that statements likely to be challenged must be cited. Something that can be observed, well, that really does fall into the "how likely is this to be challenged" category. So, then you get a war between the FA criteria which require higher quality sources and the fact that the information isn't exactly likely to be challenged because it's readily observable by anyone. In the very limited number of cases like this, it is easier to just go with the "not likely to be challenged so doesn't need a cite" rather than kill the nominator trying to find a non-Self-published source. Of course, I can always not give folks advice that will help their nominations pass or not work with them to try to resolve issues without requiring a million hoops to be jumped through, but I do try to work with the various policies, guidelines, and criteria. The whole issue of reliable sources isn't set in stone, and there is a lot of gray area and stuff. If you, as a reviewer, are satisfied that the sources meet the various criteria, that is good. HOwever, it may be that what satisfies you, won't satisify other reviewers, so a lot of times I leave sourcing concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (shrugs) Quite honestly, I"m really tired of being dragged through hoops on this FAC, and will just leave the rest of the concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (which, incidentally, was basically where things stood before, except we've managed to whittle the list down a bit more. So, whatever. It's the holidays, and I'm tired and cranky and really need to be doing other stuff, like other FACs, rather than debating this sort of thing. It's off my watchlist, consider the rest of the concerns left up to reviewer descretion. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It has improved significantly since the last time I saw it. Ruslik_Zero 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'CommentsSupport':
  • In the hygiene section the locations of the toilets are said to be in Zvezda and Harmony, but isn't the US toilet in Destiny until Tranquility arrives?
  • In the table of the future modules, I believe that pictures of Rassvet (MRM1) are now available (especially since I saw something about the module arriving in the US for launch preparations) online, but I am unsure of their copyright status, please advise.
  • Also, could we get an image of an MPLM berthed to the station for the PMM?
  • I may have completely missed this, but I do not believe that there is a prominent link for List of ISS spacewalks (a Featured List) in the assembly section or in a see also section for that matter, anywhere in this article? The statistics on the spacewalks and duration would seem relevant enough to be mentioned in this article.

I may have more later, but deal with these at a minimum for my support. -MBK004 00:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All above done, I believe. Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I have supported because in my second look through the article I did not find anything else. Admittedly I review for content accuracy and omissions, but from my reviews of the previous FACs and PRs, it is clearly evident that the improvement of this article is significant and I do not see anything else that should keep the article from becoming Featured. -MBK004 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not thrilled with the writing. Strong oppose.

  • "golden" or "gold-coloured"—take your pick, but not both at once.
  • "In-between the radiators"—why the hyphen?
  • I'd remove this comma: "modules, arranged".
  • Done. You do realise these three are in the alt text, right? User:Eubulides, alt text king, has cleared these. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the clumsy noun plus -ing constructions; please audit throughout.
Did you visit the link I provided? After working through the exercises you'll have a much better idea. I corrected about four in the diff. Tony (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for repeated links, sciency "telegram" language", and the overuse of initial caps.
  • It's a scientific/technological article, there's not much that can be done to avoid this.
There's everything to be done to avoid this dreadful telegram habit of omitting "the". It is not English. Scientists think they are free to do it, for some reason. Journal editors seem to be too ignorant to call a halt to it. Tony (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is gigantic. How long is the full article? I'm tuckered out after a few paragraphs. Tony (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is large, because in every previous assessment people complained that it was too short. Now others are complaining its too long. As I've said before, I clearly can't please everybody. Colds7ream (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. Too short, too long, there is no pleasing everybody. Every review we seem to alternate on this issue. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The length of the lead seems appropriate to me. It does contain a high proportion of lengthy and/or technical words, which may make the reading more of a slog. But it is a technical article so some of that is unavoidable.—RJH (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think that all instances of "long-term", "daily", "safe" and "efficient, reliable" can be removed from first paragraph of the lead without harming the content. Most of these are relative terms and hence vague, while the "daily" seems unnecessary. That should help shorten it a little. – RJH (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was bold and performed some judicious trimming.—RJH (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You called me back promtply ... so ... the rest is done too? My diff and the points above were examples from just the top. Tony (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, if you find anything you don't like (no-one else has seen any problems with the prose), don't hesitate to be WP:BOLD and fix it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Status: 7 supports to 1 oppose, sourcing issues dealt with by several corrections and reviewer comments. WP:CONSENSUS has been established, I believe. Colds7ream (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Great job! This is a very thorough and informative article!! Much improvement since the last FAC. Reywas92Talk 03:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's not a vote-count. Please read the instructions, which clearly point out that addressing opposes is what matters, not the number of supports.

(2) That "no one" else has bothered to critique the prose is neither here nor there. Thanks for asking, but I won't "be bold"; reviewers are under no obligation to do your work for you; I would rather spread my reviewing around more of this avalanche of FACs. Thus, it is up to you to bring the work up to standard.

See below. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of one short section:

  • Another noun plus -ing that is a little clumsy (didn't I point this out above?): "With the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War and Space Race".
See below. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similar budgetary difficulties were being faced by other nations with space station projects, prompting American government officials to start negotiations with partners in Europe, Russia, Japan, and Canada"—spot the redundant word. You could probably lose "government" (officials aren't corporate, usually). Were those countries partners before they took up the US offer to collaborate?
Nope, I like 'government'. Makes the paragraph clearer to new readers. Rest dealt with. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • multi-national: no hyphen these days, and no comma after it here.
Done. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't AmEng be used? "programme"?
See the many pages of discussion on the talk page and talk page archives. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For next time, "however" is usually not better stuck in the middle of clauses. Tony (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am more than aware of the fact that it's not a vote count, thanks (in any case, its not a count, its a landslide). Lots of people have looked at and cleared the prose; the trouble we have now is yourpet hates which no-one else has a problem with; this is the problem with the FAC process; one person can bring up an issue which no-one else thinks is a problem, and it can fail a perfectly good article despite what everyone else has said. The idea here is to form a consensus - what you're saying is, in effect, "no, I just don't like it, take it away!" - and the worst part is that it'll probably be failed because of it. We've written an extensive, detailed article on a current, large and dynamic topic, which has taken one and a half years to compile (with extensive discussion of the en-GB and en-US issue if you'd bothered to look on the talk page), and you don't like it because you personally don't like 'ing' words? Please. Give me a break. I'm not looking for you to do 'my' work for me. I just want you to recognise the work that has already been put in; I'd be grateful if you weren't so patronising. This little paragraph has probably earned the article a fail, but heck, it needed to be said, and for my stress I needed to say it. Enjoy. Colds7ream (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Tony raises some vaild points that should be addressed, comments should not be nit-picky either. Although FAs are Wikipedia's best work, which this article clearly is, they are not Wikipedia's completely perfect work. When discussing prose issues, try to point out more things that are either wrong or confusing and fewer things that are perceptions of style. Reywas92Talk 16:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, I have again asked for assistance at GOCE, if one of them might look specifically over the issues mentioned by Tony. I'm not sure which GOCE editors last reviewed the article, otherwise I would have contacted them directly. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck with that - I've had the article listed there for months with not so much as a whiff of a response. Colds7ream (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, in addition to Tony1's concerns, there has been no image review as far as I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no image expert, but since nearly every single image is PD from NASA, the only problems I found were File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg, which appears to be copyrighted, being a Russian-taken image; File:MRM-1 at RSC Energia.jpg, also a copyrighted Russian image; and File:ISScrewtimeutilization.png, which was made by a Wikipedian but is unlabeled. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll happily remove the utilisation graph, but the MRM-1 image was added in response to a request by MBK004 above. And I think comments from other reviewers rather render Tony's concerns opposed. Colds7ream (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not contest the fact that a MRM1 image would be nice, I just don't think that this MRM1 image is allowed per our NFCC (because it is replaceable at some point in the future). And MBK004 did say: "I am unsure of their copyright status, please advise." It probably shouldn't even be in the MRM-1 article. I cannot find an alternative image of MRM1 btw. It has entered the States, but only NASA images of the transportbox arriving at KSC have been published, and none of checkout images. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image from the article and have tagged it as disputed FUR. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images should now be cleared, unless someone disputes the FUR of the MIR+shuttle image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you spent more time fixing the prose, or better, finding an independent copy-editor, and less time sniping at me, the article might by now have been sufficiently improved. Instead, you harp on about the number of supports. Please read the instructions, which make it clear that this is not the essence of the process. In other words, a zillion supports count for nothing if there are still issues to be fixed. Tony (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Tony, I'm not sure that's fair. Of course the number of supports are not the essence of the process, but i don't think that was what Colds7ream's 29 Dec remark implied. The instructions do say:

For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The range of supports is therefore relevant to assessing the building of consensus, and opposes are not the key issue; rather, "actionable objections" that "have not been resolved" are important. I'm not saying that all objections necessarily have been addressed, but i thought Colds7eam's initial comment was OK to test the waters. Colds7ream, Tony is correct in that the prose could still improve, and I'll see what i can do. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right: the last para says it all. Did we really need to wade through that huge quotation to get to the relevant bit? Tony (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport

:*"The first resident crew, Expedition 1, arrived in November 2000, midway between STS-92 and STS-97, which added two segments of the station's Integrated Truss Structure, the Z1 and P6 trusses." Can an editor who knows about the construction look at this - does the clause "which added..." refer to the actions of Expedition 1, the mission objective of STS-97, or some combination of these? It isn't clear.

  • "...two Russian Strela cargo cranes, used for transferring parts and spacewalking cosmonauts around the exterior of the Russian Orbital Segment,..." Likewise this is unclear. Should this read "used for transferring parts by spacewalking cosmonauts..."? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More. "The station provides crew quarters for each member of permanent Expedition crews, with two 'sleep stations' in the Russian Orbital Segment and four spread around the rest of the station, which will eventually be moved into Tranquillity when it is added to the station." Can someone check whether this means the four spread around the station will be moved to Tranquillity, or all six? Current punctuation implies all six - just wanted to check this.
  • Update needed for this I think: "This will increase to five in early December, when another Soyuz, carrying Oleg Kotov, Timothy Creamer and Soichi Noguchi arrives."
  • Finally, there is this sentence in the lead: "The various sections of the station are controlled by several mission control centres on the ground, including MCC-H, TsUP, Col-CC, ATV-CC, JEM-CC, HTV-CC and MSS-CC." This is an avalanche of inappropriate acronyms for a lay reader, and not necessary in the lead. I suggest this be changed to "The various sections of the station are controlled by mission control centres on the ground operated by the participating space agencies."

I have now been through with some copyediting and simplification. If my five points above can be addressed, I am a support. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose — sorry. The prose is still not FA standard; there is redundancy ( eg "a course of") and vague uses of "various" and "variety". But, as Tony as already pointed out, there is a bigger problem caused by the plethora of fused participles, perhaps more easily understood as "noun plus -ing". I do not object to their occasional usage but the article is full of them. I am also concerned about concerns about the sources have not been fully addressed. In my humble opinion, the article still needs a thorough another copy-edit and concerns about sources addressed. Lastly, have I missed the image review? Was this done at the last FAC? Graham Colm Talk 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you suggest does the copyedit, Graham? I can't, it's my prose, and I see no problem with it. The Guild of Copyeditors is worse than useless in responding to requests, and reviewers here bring up issues with the prose and then do nothing to help. I realise the FAC process is overworked, but if reviewers could be a bit more helpful, or there was more support available, things would improve exponentially. In all seriousness, I'm begging for help here - I CANNOT DO THIS ON MY OWN, and no-one seems to want to help out. I'd cite WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT, but will just be shot down again. I've had it up to here with unhelpful editors in what's supposed to be a collaborative project, and am starting to flirt with thoughts of packing up and leaving. Colds7ream (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been much improved since my review a few days ago. I don't usually like to see extensive CE work during a "live" candidature, but I fully understand the nominator's frustration with regard to the lack of help. Yes, indeed this is a collaborative project, but here, at FAC, I think many reviewers expect most the collaborative work to have already been done. Some of Ealdgyth's reservations about sources remain, but I don't see any major obstacles. With regard to the FAC criteria, I have seen candidates that fall shorter than this promoted, so I ask myself this: Would I be proud to see this on the Main Page? I think so. Graham Colm Talk 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been watching this FAC since the call for help was put out at the GOCE. Just to clarify: it's really difficult to jump into a large article at last moment to clean up prose. It's better to contact copyeditors individually from the list to find one with time and even better, some familiarity with the discipline/field. I work almost exclusively on articles related to the arts, so working on this article with a deadline, is more than daunting. Just thought I'd add an unsolicited opinion. That said, I can spend a little time working through the article bit by bit. First, however, I'd suggest the two back-to-back sentences that begin with "this" (unspecified pronouns) be recast with antecedents. See "This provides" & "This aspect" para 3, in Purpose. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said earlier, I had the article listed on the requests page on GOCE for literally months. No response whatsoever. Colds7ream (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status check (response to immediately preceding comments).

  • I have now made a third run through copyediting, and picking up some more overlinking.
  • Other editor(s) appear to have weeded out fused participles that were a concern.
  • Though not stated explicitly, I think the comments and actions of User:TheDJ have addressed the matter of images, unless anyone has further concerns.
  • Substantial work has been done to deal with questions of source quality, both in eliminating some sources and improving the level of available information about others. It is hard to gauge from the text above just where the sources are at, so I may get this wrong, but here's my take:
  • Sources queried by Ealdgyth and not subsequently struck out by her:
In addition, Ealdgyth left unstruck http://spaceweather.com/, but stated "Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable".
Of these sources, the bobpark refs are now only used to substantiate the fact that Bob Park (a physicist) has made certain criticism of the ISS program. I have suggested that they are reliable for this purpose. The nom has also bolstered this with other more significant refs about criticisms.
There is a later list of "Sources requiring discussion" in the FAC discussion - i'm uncertain who put that list there. Although it is later in the review, I think it has been superceded by subsequent discussion and actions by editors including Colds7ream:
In other respects the list is the same as that of Ealdgyth, above. It appears therefore that there are three sources still in use in the article queried by Ealdgyth for which only the nom has made any response. I am reproducing those responses here:
"About Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
"Simply because these are the only references I can find - they match up with the NASA diagram provided in the ISS reference guide, and I felt that a paragraph based on these would be better than 'the Russian bits have some cool radio stuff too...'. This is the trouble with the ROS - Roskosmos is considerably more secretive than NASA. Colds7ream (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Personally I would recommend Colds7ream or others weed out these last three if possible (particularly thespacereview, unless third party publications endorsing it can be found), but if those items are the only sources available on the ROS info, then I'm not sure that weeding them and the associated content out is the best option. Either way I would not hold up the FA on that issue alone. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summarising, Hamiltonstone. The spacereview reference and statement have already been removed, and the ROS sources are indeed the only ones I can find; I'd rather not remove all the ROS comms data if possible, if only to avoid taking an exclusively US-based viewpoint on the article. Colds7ream (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still tiny images? I fixed two. The map of the world is soooo small: who on earth could make out the text on it? Try centering and boosting massively. If you have control of the original, please enlarge the text. Tony (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. Fair point. After a certain amount of stuffing around and reading Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, I did some resizing of those where i thought greater size was valuable for making out the image content. If I've stomped all over some aspect of how WP tries to present images, feel free to tell me where to read about it, then revert. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not a participant of the FAC process, and really have no knowledge of how it works (and, frankly, I have little interest in it). I mention this point because I'm not going to stick around here to debate my opinion, and I'm not sure that my opinion really counts for anything here. All I really wanted to say is that I don't think that an article that has seemingly been appropriated by some sort of quixotic nationalist interests by imposing the use of British English on it ought to be a Featured Article. If it was a subject tied directly to the UK, or there was some compelling reason to use a nationalistic variety of English, then I wouldn't care, but that's not the situation here. I wish you guys good will in improving the article, especially since it's a subject area that I have a ton of interest in, but this issue really bugs me.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Talk:International Space Station/Archive 7#RfC: British English versus American English for this Article. Colds7ream (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You use that link as though it actually addresses the concern that people are bringing up. Since this is obviously an issue for many people, don't you think that it's worth considering? I'd love this article to be featured, and I'd love to help get it there, but this issue that you've created really wrecks it.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We did discuss it. The result was no consensus to change. It took ages and proved to be a major distraction. The version of English doesn't matter - American can read British English and Britons can read American English. What exactly is the problem here? Colds7ream (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has got absolutely nothing to do with regard to the FA criteria and I think that the FAC delegates will pay little attention to this point. I quote: The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. Within the English Wikipedia no variety is considered more correct than another. Editors should understand that the differences between the varieties are largely superficial. Which is from WP:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English. PS. Who are these "many people"? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progress? Graham Colm appears to have partly struck out his concerns. On the image issue, as I commented earlier, unless anyone thinks otherwise the images appear to have been addressed by TheDJ. Graham comments that it needs another copyedit. The specific examples he left in his comment were: "there is redundancy ( eg "a course of") and vague uses of "various" and "variety"." I did a search, found no uses of "a course of" at all, one of "various" that i have removed, and two uses of "variety", both of them appropriate IMHO. I appreciate they were meant to be illustrative, but i was wondering whether that comment is now defunct after recent copyediting, and if so whether it might be struck through? I guess i'm wondering what type of redundancies or other copyediting issues reviewers think remain? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good news! We have an extensive copyedit ongoing! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work is also underway to replace the Russian comm sources and remove other dodgily-sourced info from the section. A book has been found! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article and everything I would expect from an FA. There isn't a book in the world without a typo, so I don't accept that incredibly minor grammatical errors should hold this up, and fwiw I think the lead is a perfect length for a complex subject. The whole article also makes a complex subject very accessible. If I may make one prose suggestion though; all 3 para's of the lead and several of the para's in the next couple of sections all open the same way... Just a thought. I'd also recommend that the objection listed above should be struck. Spelling has no bearing on this FAC and the person who did the most work on the article should get to choose. Nice work Ranger Steve (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much! :-) I've had a go at dealing with the paragraph starts in the lead - what do you think? Colds7ream (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. Wasn't a major issue anyway, but I do think it looks better. Best of luck with this FAC. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contributors map does have alt text, I'm sure: "A world map highlighting Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland in red and Brazil in pink. See adjacent text for details." Also, I've added an info template to File:MLM - ISS module.jpg. Colds7ream (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for File:TVIS treadmill.jpg, image moved to Commons, high res version found, information template added. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All my issues are addressed then.—RJH (talk)
Update: The copyedit is largely complete, the only thing remaining is the Russian communications system citations, which are being dealt with at Talk:International Space Station#ISS remaining issues. Colds7ream (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and that's that sorted too. Anybody got anything else they'd like us to fix? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my opinion remains unchanged from the previous FAC. --GW… 20:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status. Since I last commented on the status of the article above (7 Jan), several issues have been addressed:

  • Rewriting of "communications" section to reflect the jettison of unreliable sources, and at least one new source. The changes are most obvious looking at this diff.
  • Image review has been undertaken; thank you to User:RJHall.
  • I have just re-run the script to check MOSDASHES, and checked dablinks again. All clear.

Tony's strong oppose precedes all these changes; everything else looks in order. For reviewers' information. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is using a template that is in userspace. Please move this to template space ASAP. Articles should never point to userspace. Karanacs (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please fix the measurement (meters cubed) which needs to have a conversion. The table on pressurized modules does not have citations; these need to be added for statistics, such as how many of X is present. And we need citations for the projected dates that the rest of the modules will be delivered. The table for that is devoid of citations. I've also made other MOS fixes (sentences shouldn't start with a number that isn't spelled out, etc). At this late stage in the game, I don't expect to see these types of problems. Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the template, and the pressurised modules tables - both of them - have a citation or two on every line. There's not a single module uncited. I've also inserted a conversion template for the 1000m3 - is that the only one? I'd also like to say that the reason these things were there is because no-one has said anything about them before. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so prompt. Sorry, I totally missed the citations next to the pictures. Blame my poor tired eyes - there are a LOT of FACs to run through today. Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:46, 12 January 2010 [130].

William Garrow edit

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I optimistically feel it meets the requirements set. A note: I appreciate the relatively few sources used in the article. This is because there are relatively few; he was forgotten for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, and only academically "rediscovered" in 1991. There are a few additional sources identified in the ODNB I could use, but I can't get access to them, it seems. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • For information on Garrow, see Landsman, "The Rise of the Contentious Spirit," 561- 64. Didn't you find anything useful in "The origins of adversary criminal trial" by Langbein? It seems to raise interesting points...
  • I did, but it didn't discuss Garrow himself much. The information I could see (I may not have been paying much attention and missed something, I appreciate). I'm not quite sure where to get Landsman from, but I'll do a search.Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, his "indisputabl[y]...massive impact on the modern, adversarial court system" isn't really explained or described in great detail. But I'll just raise that as a point to discuss.
  • This is the problem; the sources I have all go (essentially) "Garrow was aggressive, as seen in case X when he did....", "Garrow set rules of evidence, as seen in case Y when he said to the jury..." but they don't actually discuss his importance in much detail, except to say that because of his status as a leading practitioner, new pupils followed his lead and it helped bring in an adversarial, evidence-based system. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is that you've opted to be too cautious with respect to his contribution. I fully understand your caution, and in one way I applaud it. However, the reason why this is a concern for me is that... before yesterday or whenever, I had never heard of Garrow and didn't really have any crystallized understanding that the court system wasn't always "adversarial". Then when I read this, I was quite interested. This is cool stuff, to be frank. But the article left me with a hollow feeling. What... what were the changes, then? I would like to know what the distinguishing features of an adversarial system are, and how Garrow contributed. Now, of course there are two problems. The first is that a full explanation should be in the article on the adversarial system. Fair enough. But at least I could get two or three points, either one paragraph each, or each having two or three sentences in one longish paragraph. That would mean either an additional two or three paragraphs or one longish paragraph in this article. And the second reservation is (as you mentioned) that Garrow's contributions... just weren't closely recorded... because people don't always notice that history is being made. Fair enough again. However, "The origins of adversary criminal trial" by Langbein seemed to take the approach I am hoping for. It did mention at least two characteristics and said "It's not possible to clearly define Garrow's contributions, but...". It even offered a "people don't notice history" hedge. I'm hoping you can take an approach similar to Langbein's. I am making final tests now, but if you can't find the instances I am talking about in Langbein, I will try to find them... • Ling.Nut 04:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, I see your point; thank you, by the way, for the emailed sources. I think a way to do it would be to expand on a) what the situation was pre-Garrow, b) what Garrow's attitude was and c) what the situation was post-Garrow; if you've got no problems with that format, I'll spend the next couple of days rejigging it. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, added more in; a heartfelt "thanks!" for the additional sources, by the way. Ironholds (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds perfect. I would also suggest adding one sentence that says something roughly like "Although contemporary documents do not establish clearly the degree of Garrow's impact on these trends, many sources suggest that his impact was <insert adjective>" followed by a modest example of the the blue-link parade or chorus line that we all know and love. • Ling.Nut 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, or the impact? And if impact, advocacy or evidence? Ironholds (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "irregular relationship" euphemism.... no wait, you're probably referring to "Farrington confided to his diary that [Garrow's] marriage was 'somewhat irregular'" (Hostettler p. 60). I dunno if I would have presented this information in the same manner that you have.
  • Could we have the monetary sums expressed in modern values as well?
  • I found a couple cites that suggest that either he coined the phrase "innocent until proved guilty," or at least his was the earliest recorded use of it.
  • Here are two: one two. It should be borne in mind, however, that several sources seem to suggest that this is not a completely settled fact. Heck, just Google it. • Ling.Nut 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The prose is pretty good. ceranthor 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He quickly established a reputation as a criminal law barrister, particularly for the defendants, and in February 1793 was made a King's Counsel by HM Government to prosecute treason and felony cases. - I think this would flow better at the end as... cases of treason and felonies ... or at least sound cooler ;)
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I in turn changed that, make sure it didn't change the meaning please.
    I have to say I prefer my version, rather than "treason and felonies" which is "singular and plural"; a bit awkward. Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studying here Garrow "knew the English language well; had a moderate acquaintance with the Latin and, as an accomplishment, added a considerable proficiency in French".[4] - studying there
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No mention of the libel case of John and Leigh Hunt. In all fairness, it isn't mentioned in the Hunt article, either, and most definitely should be discussed there. But one source I found says that the Hunt case brought Garrow notoriety. • Ling.Nut 04:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added that information which I have; could you provide the notoriety source? The Braby book is short on detail of the case. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from J Milburn

I will have a read through and see what I can find. If I seem over-critical, rest assured that it's because I hate you.

  • "a famine from 1695 to 1699 and a cattle disease the following year" We got articles on either of these?
    It doesn't look like it, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Geography, Mathematics" Why are they capitalised?
    moved down a notch. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "articled" is hardly a common term. Link?
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a caption on the infobox image? How old is he there?
    Done.
  • "with assaulting John Troughton, putting him in fear of his life, and stealing his hat." Well, that cracked me up.
  • "By 1799, a book recorded that his business at the Court of King's Bench "is exceeded by none but Mr. Erskine's", and that "he has long monopolized the chief business on the home circuit... No man is heard with more attention by the court, no man gains more upon a jury, or better pleases a common auditor".[19]" Could this be rephrased? The tenses are odd, and I'm not even certain what it means.
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Briton described" What is The Briton, precisely?
    A newspaper; no article, unfortunately. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Morning Chronicle" Again?
    Linked. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Official Opposition, not HM Government." Who were these people, precisely?
    Linked. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which Garrow had long been opposed to" to which Garrow had long been oppose
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is considered one of his best." By whom, on what grounds? That sort of phrase can't really stand in an FA...
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thanks to Garrow's political connections, he was made first Solicitor General and then Attorney General for the Prince of Wales in 1806 and 1807; he was recommended by Erskine, who said in a letter to the Prince that "he knows more of the real justice and policy of everything connected with the criminal law than any man I am acquainted with".[27]" Seems a bit shortt to be its own paragraph
    Expanded somewhat. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The press had been speculating that Garrow, a Whig, would enter Parliament since 1789" Perhaps "Since 1789, the press had been speculating that Garrow, a Whig, would enter Parliament"
    Done.Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however he was first returned in 1805 for Gatton." Sorry, what does this mean?
    Returned is the technical term for being elected to Parliament. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "impeachment" link?
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He did not enjoy his time in Parliament," What are we basing this on? Letters? Can we have a quote?
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attorney General" Link?
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He eventually resigned as Attorney General and as a Member of Parliament in 1817, when he was appointed one of the Barons of the Exchequer.[34]" Refer to him by name- you just mentioned Garrow
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""to appoint a gentleman holding a lucrative office at the sole pleasure of the Crown to a high judicial situation, was extremely inconsistent with that independence of the judicial character which it was so important to preserve inviolate"." Is this a quote from Romilly, or a(n) historian?
    Romilly, directly. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He regularly amazed both barristers and defendants with his knowledge of the intricacies of crime." Examples? Again, this is a rather unsupported statement.
    The best I can do is "Braby claims"; no example is given. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The trust contains his entire estate, with the trustees being Leonard Smith, a merchant, Edward Lowth Badeley of Paper Buildings, Inner Temple and William Nanson Lettsom of Gray's Inn.[42]" Is this meant to be present tense?
    Hah, woops! Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lemmings notes Garrow as not only a formidable advocate but "[the] first lawyer to establish a reputation as a defence barrister".[48]" Who? This chap hasn't been mentioned before
    See the biblio. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "further extended the analysis of Garrow's work with "The Bar and the Old Bailey: 1750-1850", published in 2003." What journal was that published in?
    It's a book
  • "Garrow's work was cited as recently" cited in court, presumably?
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Garrow's work was cited as recently as 1982, when the Supreme Court of Canada quoted a passage from The Trial of William Davidson and Richard Tidd for High Treason, where Garrow instructed the jury as to how to interpret testimony, in Vetrovec v The Queen in 1982, and 2006, when the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal quoted the same work in their review of the 1982 conviction of Brian Meehan for the murder of Veronica Guerin.[50]" Quite a long and confusing sentence.
    Hopefully I've fixed it. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is indisputable that he had" Refer to him by name?
    Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced to defend himself." Or herself? Or not?
    Normally I use the masculine tense, with the convention that unless otherwise mentioned, it refers to both genders. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was crucial in insisting on the autonomy of lawyers when inducting evidence, in one case openly arguing with the trial judge to insist that the advocates have independence in submitting it." This is too technical for me, but sounds interesting. Could it be rephrased or include some links?
    Hmn. I've linked evidence to the appropriate article; I don't really know how to reword it. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas Hague had suggested" Odd phrase.
    "has", I think. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely interesting article. Well researched, seems to cover the ground. Very well written, and the topic is fascinating. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above changes and IRC discussion with Ironholds, I am now willing to support this. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Support. I dunno how much longer this FAC will run. If it comes to closing time, please color me "Weak Support". I think the "Weak" can be rectified with only a few changes, only two of which I would absolutely require. First, I think a sentence (or at most two, but probably not even that) in the lede that mentions the details of his impact is called for, since these are supporting points of a major thesis of the article. That's the change I require, and really, it shouldn't take more than 5 or at most 10 minutes to make a nice one. Second, please change "irregular relationship" to something like "That one contemporary described as 'irregular'" and cite the quote.. I gave it somewhere above. Another minute or two, tops. Third... I don't absolutely require this, but it would be oh so wonderful.. where is the other landsman article? Please find it if you have time: THE RISE OF THE CONTENTIOUS SPIRIT: ADVERSARY PROCEDURE IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND. March, 1990 75 Cornell L. Rev. 497 • Ling.Nut 06:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Made the first change, I think; I'll try and find the second journal article. Ironholds (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An interesting article. I must admit it might be recentism, but I do think we could do with another sentence or two on Garrow's Law? It is a novel idea to have a drama based in 18th century court drama and I believe it has been criticised for hitorical inacuracies/dumbing down. I'd also change the sentence about him going into parliament to be '...would enter Parliament as a whig' rather than '...,a whig, would enter Parliament'. It could do with some more pictures of the subject as well. You cannot tell me there are no satirical cartoons of Mr Garrow's work considering the period? I'd also, obviously, prefer the less opaque method of referencing of Name, Title, Publishing Info, Page rather than the simple Name Date format, though I am aware this is more usual in legal history etc. However, these are picky improvement one could make to an already good article. As it stands it is a worthy FAC, though a few niggling improvements could occur. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Read this article a few days ago, and was impressed then. The improvements definitely suggest this meets the featured article criteria. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was the GA reviewer for this article, it was a pleasure to read at that time and clearly met those requirements and i suggested that it could without much difficulty make its way here, with the improvements already made I think its certainly a worthy FA Ajbpearce (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Late to the party, I know, but a few comments. Firstly, when Ironholds asked me if I could suggest a law-related article he could improve, and I suggested Garrow, I never thought how excellent the result would be. Given Ironhold's skill as a writer, though, I should not have doubted the outcome. A few quibblettes:
    • In the body of the article, Southouse recommends that Garrow becomes a barrister or solicitor, and then he becomes Crompton' pupil. In the lead, Crompton recommends to his pupil that he becomes a barrister or solicitor. I assume that the first version is correct, and the lead is slightly tangled?
    • "...many people in Aberdeenshire migrated south. As such, Garrow's father David was born at a farm called Knockside" etc. I'm slightly puzzled by what the "As such" adds here, when David Garrow is still born in Aberdeenshire.
    • In the discussion of his first trial, "and being two of the most prestigious criminal barristers of the day" seems odd - is a word missing?
    • I'm not convinced that Law Officers of the Crown is a good link when mentioning Garrow's appointment as S-G then A-G to the Prince of Wales, since (if I understand things correctly) he wasn't being appointed to a Crown position in the sense of a governmental appointment, but to a private (though prestigious) post in the Prince's affairs. Attorney-General of the Duchy of Cornwall might work, though it isn't great.
    • In the same sentence, is there a better link for "Prince of Wales" than, err, "Prince of Wales", i.e. the individual in question rather than the title?
    • In Political career, "appointed to serve the interests of his patron" - out of interest, who was his patron?
  • Otherwise, a very interesting read, and an article that will surely be even more widely read if and when series 2 of "Garrow's Law" is produced! BencherliteTalk 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, Bencherlite; I've fixed all the points. No need to be self-deprecating; from the list of Cornwall AGs, it appears that was his formal title! Nice catch :). Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: after a bit of tidying up, the images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:46, 12 January 2010 [131].

Cyclura nubila edit

Nominator(s): Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has achieved Good Article Status, it is well-sourced, stable, and I believe it is ready for the next step. It recently went through Peer Review and all suggestions there have been implemented. Thanks for your time. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical check No dabs, no dead links, but alt text is either missing, inadequate, or includes information that is not describing the image such as the name of the zoo. Remember the point of alt text is just to describe what is shown in the image, not to add non-visible details. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that ALT Text thing has been kicking my butt for a few days. I think I have it figured out, small pics, no space after the equal sign, let me know how I can improve them! Thanks again for taking the time to review!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (earlier comments moved to talk) Sorry for the long delay in coming back here - I haven't had Internet access for a while. The article is much better now, and you can consider everything above here as resolved, but I still have a couple of comments:

  • Why not add a little about scalation counts in the article? It's probably not the most exciting information, but it's been the subject of scientific studies, so why not say how many scales there are and perhaps how that differs from the most closely related other Cyclura species?
I'll look into this, although it may be out of scope here and beter in the Cyclura article.
Perhaps true, but not so for the counts in C. nubila itself.
I'll definitely look into adding this, would be better if I could draw it like it is in the Burton paper cited and linked in the article (ref #10)don't want to make it ABAADA, though.
ABAADA?
As Boring As A Dog's Ass. :)
  • I have to agree with Fifelfoo below that it'd be better to source the etymology of Cyclura to something better than a website. For mammals, there is a giant work by someone who compiled all genus names and etymologies back in 1904; perhaps someone similar exists for reptiles?
Nope. Nothing that I've been able to find explains the Greek roots of Cyclura as well, believe it or not. I'll trust a Franciscan Biologist on a Latin/Greek translation over most modern sources anyway. My background in Latin and Greek is the same and I'll go toe to toe with any Doctor with a background in the Sciences any day on a Latin translation.  :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are right; Google Books and the Biodiversity Heritage Library didn't bring me anything. I did find the original description of Cyclura, which talks about a cylindrical tail in C. teres but does not explicitly say that is where the name comes from. Ucucha 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add that as an additional source?
Perhaps. But what you'd be citing it for is the etymology, and Harlan doesn't give an etymology. By the way, I also found the original description of Cyclura nubila [132], which isn't very etymologically useful either. I added it as a ref to correct the original name. Ucucha 09:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Great Find! Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found a reliable source to replace the good Father Sanchez: http://books.google.nl/books?id=G25PwlJyyk4C&lpg=PA80&ots=NiqUuOn5gc&dq=Cyclura%20oura&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q=Cyclura%20oura&f=false. Ucucha 08:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to come back and respond.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: Sourcing: Father Sanchez' website is not a High quality reliable source, or reliable source as it hasn't undergone peer review and is being used to support Taxonomy.
Actually, all that Father Sanchez source is supporting is a Greek to English translation, thanks for taking the time to read it.

Also high quality reliable source issue: using the Caymanian Compass to support sexual dimorphism?

It's one of three sources, some reviewers like to see things on the interwebs, I prefer books, thanks again for your time.
    • Comments: Dates in citations need to be brought to consistency. At the moment Month DD, YYYY and DD Month YYYY are both present. I fixed Malone, C.L. (2000). as it hasn't been published for the purposes of a citation system (its certainly a HQRS and is published in the Wikipedia sense of "made available for consultation and issued by a responsible issuer") it needs to use Roman rather than Italic text for the title. Some sources have locations for their publisher, others don't, and you're not applying obviousness of locations either: locations for all or none. "(in English). SF Gate" and again for Deseret News? Some other fiddle spacing issues such as, "Retrieved December 04,2009." Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into all this, thanks for fixing the thesis format, for me, dates appear to be consistent.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add, I ended up having to do this over, so thanks for not fixing the format.

Support wrt criterion 1a. Oppose- sadly. An enjoyable article about a charming lizard but the prose needs more work. It suffers mainly from redundancy, repetition and a little verbosity. I have taken the liberty of editing the Lead to give you a better understanding of what I mean.[133] I think a good copy editor could fix these issues in an hour or so, and enjoy doing it. Graham Colm Talk 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been greatly improved over these past few days. Graham Colm Talk 18:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham, I'll keep plugging away at it, sometimes when I write these reptile pieces up I put on my scientist hat and geek out a bit, printing it and reading it aloud is what made me go "ooooh that's bad!"--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Graham Colm Talk 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All the images have appropriate licenses and sources where needed. It is always reassuring to see the metadata (although one image, having been post-processed, has lost this). Graham Colm Talk 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just some stuff I think could be fixed:

  • "As they are not capable of creating urine more concentrated than their bodily fluids, they excrete nitrogenous wastes as uric acid salts through a salt gland in the same manner as birds. As a result, they have developed this lateral nasal gland to supplement renal salt secretion by expelling excess potassium and sodium chloride." This seems a bit clunky to me. I think they could be combined, but I'm not I understand what is being said well enough to do it myself.
Basically, they do not produce liquid urine, but they do produce uric acid. In most reptiles (think snakes and varanids) this is expelled as urates with their feces. They consume a lot of plant matter so they blow salt and potassium out of their nose. You see this exaggerated if you watch documentaries on Marine iguanas, or if you've ever seen white specks on the inside glass of a terrarium with iguanas in it. I'll try to break it down into two sentences.
This is a difficult fact to get across without going into too much technical detail. How about, "Unlike mammals, reptile kidneys cannot concentrate urine to save on water intake. Instead they excrete toxic nitrogenous wastes as solid uric acid in their cloaca, and they excrete other excess salt ions through their salt glands." Graham Colm Talk 19:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham, how about: "Unlike mammals, reptile kidneys cannot concentrate urine to save on water intake. Instead they excrete toxic nitrogenous wastes as solid uric acid through their cloaca. In the case of the Cuban iguana which consumes large amounts of vegetation high in phosphorous, these excess salt ions are excreted through their salt glands."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, I think. :-) Graham Colm Talk 19:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, it suggests that iguanas lay their eggs in close proximity to Cuban crocodiles, but in the Mating section it seems that they lay in the abandoned mounds of the crocodiles and not near the crocodiles themselves.
I'll clear this up. Thanks for reading/giving feedback!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I got it, let me know. Thanks again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that I feel that I can support. I've given it a copyedit, which I encourage you to look over to make sure I didn't alter the facts. bibliomaniac15 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have all the pictures been verified that they show the correct species? There are some wikipedia iguana articles with the wrong species as an image in the article. Not my information, a friend is an iguanologist, or whatever, and tells me this. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir, and yes...I've spent the past three years correcting misidentified species on here, mostly its the Ctenosaura types that get called "Green iguana" by tourists in Mexico, but there was a rather humorous one involving a Chuckwalla misidentified as a Beaded lizard. All pics are of the type found on Cuba, the Isla Mayagues population is much redder.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with CoI I did the GA for this. Having reviewed again today, it has now been improved to FA level Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata.

Lead

Taxonomy

  • how about a citation to the protologue? Maybe it's available somewhere on the net?
  • "Its specific name nubila..." specific is currently linked to species. How about linking instead to specific name?
Done.
  • link subspecies
Done.
  • "This phylogeny was revised after later mitochondrial DNA analysis..." I think maybe the word classification would be more appropriate than phylogeny here
Done
  • "Cuban iguanas in excess of 1.6 meters (5.2 ft) when measured from the snout to the tip of the tail have been recorded..." Since the previous sentence clearly identifies the subject as Cuban iguanas, how about tightening thusly: "Individuals with lengths in excess of 1.6 meters (5.2 ft) (measured from the snout to the tip of the tail) have been recorded at the wildlife sanctuary within the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base..." Also, would any meaning be lost by changing "within" to "in"?
Done and I think so, "in" does not sound right to me whenthinking of GITMO.."inside"?
  • "In both sexes, limbs are black with pale brown oval spots." I don't really see this blackness in the images provided. At best, the specimen pictured in the Conservation section has gray limbs. Am I missing something?
Actually, it's correct, hard to see in these images see here:[134],
  • "...and a row of spines running down their back..." How long are these spines? Are they sharp?
The length is proportional to the age of the animal, hatchlings are hard to see, juveniles look like a row of bumps a male with an 18" body length has 1/4" spines, whereas a full-grown adult may be an inch or longer. They are pointed, but not sharp.
  • wlink mottling; color vision; maybe wikt transverse
done
  • "By seeking out locations with more ultraviolet sunlight to bask in, the Cuban iguana optimizes vitamin D production." I'd be interested to know if any sources mention this as a possible adaptation to a vit. D deficient diet?
Not that I've seen, although there is a well-documented case of a herpetoculturist who keeps Chuckwallas and provides them with no sunlight or artificial UV light, instead he feeds his animals excessive doses of liquid Vitamin D. Sauromalus and Cyclura have similar lighting requirements in this regard.
  • "Cuban iguanas have a white photosensory organ on the top of their heads called the parietal eye." I can't see any such eye in the images... could you describe this eye some more?

It is very difficult to see, here is a picture of one on the top of an Anole's head:[135]I wikilinked to the article to go into greater detail that I felt was beyond the scope of this article.

  • numbers or text: "95%" vs. "fifty percent" later
Done
  • link nematode;
Done
  • "Instead reptiles excrete toxic nitrogenous wastes..." Comma after Instead, for a pause?
Done
  • anything more about their behaviour? Are they territorial? Do they fight? Do they defend themselves by biting or whipping their tails? Do they hang out in groups? Can they climb trees? How fast can they run?
I can include some more of this they're not as territorial as other Cyclura, most combat is "ritual", although I have a female that latches on to the throat of every prospective male I've introduced her to and tries to kill him. They lash and hiss, in 30 years I've only been bitten by one who was an overaggressive eater who mistook my hand for food as I was feeding him. I actually go into this more in the mating section. They can climb trees, but they are not arboreal, they are a heavy-bodied lizard more suited to the ground. They are not as fast as Ctenosaura similis, but they're not exactly slow and lumbering, either.
  • link sexual maturity; clutch;
  • How big are the eggs? What color are they? What percentage typically survive? When do they crocodile eggs hatch?
3 inches or so, off-white to tan, in captivity 95%...I could not say what it is in the wild, crocs hatch in July, right before the iguanas lay their eggs.
  • the second sentence in the Distribution section sticks out somewhat, as it's more about behavior; same with the head-bobbing a bit later
I'll take a look.
  • "As of the year 2000, there has been talk of removing or relocating this population..." who is talking?
US Government, Dept of Interior, although, I have not heard much on this the past year or so.
  • "The rapid change in display structure between the colony of animals on Isla Magueyes and those on Cuba illustrated the potential of small founding population size as a catalyst to evolution with regard to communication or display." Sentence structure seems awkward, making it difficult to clearly understand what this means with a single readthrough. Next sentence also needs tweaking.

Ok it's getting late, must sleep. Will continue review tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got most of these.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata - continued

  • the last paragraph of mating and behavior has four sentences, all of which are cited to the same source; seems unnecessary, as a single citation at the end of the paragraph implies that all of the contents of the paragraph are cited to that source
Understood, but it doesn't keep certain people from filling an article with [citation needed] tags everyt ime they see a period not followed by a number.
  • Section "Distribution" should really be "Distribution and habitat", don'tcha think?
Good call!
  • still think the past paragraph on head-bobbing should be moved up a section into "Mating and behavior"
I would tend to agree if it was strictly about head-bobbbing, but in this instance it has more to do with communication based on a evolution of an isolated population in a new location than just animal courtship.
  • "The Cuban iguana is well established" last two words should be hyphenated, no? Also, I don;t think this needs to be cited as the following sentence cites to the same source (like the above example)
Fixed
  • link breeding program; pet trade; vulnerable
  • "In a round-about way, the Cuban iguana's status as an endangered species made its way..." I thought it was "vulnerable" as few sentences ago?
It is, but it is protected under the Endangered Species Act, except in Puerto Rico.
  • "According to Peter Honigsberg, a professor of law at the University of San Francisco: Wilner unsuccessfully made two arguments before the Court to hear his case; in his third argument he changed gears by mentioning US law and the Cuban iguana." I'd suggest changing the colon to a comma, and the semicolon to a period. Also, the phrase "changing gears" seems vernacular and might be worthwhile rephrasing. (p.s. I feel a bit dorky criticizing prose after Tony below has okayed it... I just call 'em like I sees 'em; feel free to ignore the suggestions)
I fixed it.
  • "According to Honigsberg, the Supreme Court to agree to hear the case." not a sentence
it was until someone decided to have intercourse with it, without even having the common courtesy to oppose it here.
  • first paragraph of "Decline" has triple-redundant citations
I'll remove such cites, then if it's a point of contention...and point them here when they start sprinkling [citation needed] throughout.
fixed
  • "...depicting a Cuban iguana on the head side of the coin in an attempt to raise awareness for this animal." "for" or "of"? Not sure myself...

Thanks again! I'll look into the redundant links and ref formatting now--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) References: MOS fiddling required[reply]

fixed
  • ref #9 needs italics for genus name, also, the actual journal title is "Journal of Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution"
fixed
  • Ref #15 has different author name format; needs publisher location; should be p. instead of pp.
fixed
I don't have locations for every source, someone on here told me to get rid of the locations for consistency, which is it?
Consistency is best; it shouldn't be too difficult to find publisher locations with an internet search. Sasata (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second author in Ref #17 has a different format; needs page #'s
fixed
  • Refs 18,19, 27 needs italics for Latin names
fixed
  • Is ref 21 foreign language? Should be specified. Also p., not pp.
It's in English and Spanish
  • Refs 28, 32 pp. -> p.; both need publisher location (as well as #33)
Got it all except for the publisher's location, in hindsight I will go back and add this, the reviewer who said, "None or all" apparently gave me another piece of bad advice.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata - continued, part 2 Sasata (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a literature review and it seems to me like there's been quite a few interesting or relevant studies published that aren't used as sources in the article. Any comment on why these articles weren't used? Based on a quick reading of the abstracts, it seems that some of them have some interesting information that should be at least mentioned in the article.
Title: Natural history and morphometry of the Cuban iguana (Cyclura nubila Gray, 1831) in Cayo Siju, Cuba
Author(s): Beovides-Casas, K.; Mancina, C. A.
Source: Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Volume: 29 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-8 Published: 2006
Don't believe I've ever seen this one before.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Cannibalism in an introduced population of Cyclura nubila nubila on Isla Magueyes, Puerto Rico.
Author(s): Perez-Buitrago, Nestor F.; Alvarez, Alberto O.; Garcia, Miguel A.
Source: Iguana Volume: 13 Issue: 3 Pages: 206-208 Published: September 2006
A big lizard ate a baby lizard? I have this one in print and didn't think its contents merited inclusion.
Title: Cylura nubila on Isla Magueyes, Puerto Rico
Author(s): Garcia, Miguel
Source: Iguana Volume: 13 Issue: 2 Pages: 126 Published: JUN 2006
Nothing in here that isn't already written about elsewhere in the article.
Title: Conserving the remarkable reptiles of Guantanamo Bay
Author(s): Alberts, Allison C.
Source: Iguana Volume: 13 Issue: 1 Pages: 8-15 Published: MAR 2006
Nothing in here that isn't already written about elsewhere in the article.
Title: Characterization of 20 microsatellite marker loci in the west Indian rock iguana (Cyclura nubila)
Author(s): An, JH; Sommer, JA; Shore, GD, et al.
Source: CONSERVATION GENETICS Volume: 5 Issue: 1 Pages: 121-125 Published: 2004
Nothing here that would really add to what has been written. I've read it and thought it was a bit out of scope.
Title: Revision to species of Cyclura nubila lewisi, the Grand Cayman Blue Iguana
Author(s): Burton, FJ
Source: CARIBBEAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Volume: 40 Issue: 2 Pages: 198-203 Published: 2004
I thought this was linked, I used it in the Blue iguana piece, it's more about that species than this one.
Title: Cyclura nubila lewisi (Grand Cayman Blue Rock Iguana).
Author(s): Burton, Frederic J.
Source: Herpetological Review Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Pages: 388-389 Published: December 2004
Different species, see above.
Title: The effect of anthropogenic habitat usage on the social behaviour of a vulnerable species, Cyclura nubila
Author(s): Lacy, KE; Martins, EP
Source: ANIMAL CONSERVATION Volume: 6 Pages: 3-9 Part: 1 Published: FEB 2003
I know the authors, not sure if I've seen this one before.
Title: Lacertilia: Cyclura nubila nubila (Cuban iguana). Carrion feeding
Author(s): Gerber, Glenn P.; Grant, Tandora D.; Alberts, Allison C., et al.
Source: Herpetological Review Volume: 33 Issue: 2 Pages: 133-134 Published: June, 2002
Nothing in here that isn't already written about elsewhere in the article.
Title: Temporary alteration of local social structure in a threatened population of Cuban iguanas (Cyclura nubila)
Author(s): Alberts, AC; Lemm, JM; Perry, AM, et al.
Source: BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY Volume: 51 Issue: 4 Pages: 324-335 Published: 2002
Don't think I've seen this before..I know Jeff and Allison and usually read everything they publish.
Title: The biology and breeding of the Cuban ground iguana (Cyclura nubila) in captivity.
Author(s): Rehak, Ivan; Velensky, Petr
Source: Gazella Volume: 28 Pages: 129-208 Published: 1 January 2001
Never heard of this publication. Although I do know Ivan Rehak.
Title: The need for pre-release health screening in animal translocations: a case study of the Cuban iguana (Cyclura nubila)
Author(s): Alberts, AC; Oliva, ML; Worley, MB, et al.
Source: ANIMAL CONSERVATION Volume: 1 Issue: 3 Pages: 165-172 Published: 1998
good one, but goes more into parasite counts. I thought it was too out of scope.
Title: Effects of incubation temperature and water potential on growth and thermoregulatory behavior of hatchling Cuban rock iguanas (Cyclura nubila)
Author(s): Alberts, AC; Perry, AM; Lemm, JM, et al.
Source: COPEIA Issue: 4 Pages: 766-776 Published: DEC 9 1997
A very good one, but its more concerned with captive husbandry and is out of scope for this piece.
Title: Use of statistical models based on radiographic measurements to predict oviposition date and clutch size in rock iguanas (Cyclura nubila)
Author(s): Alberts, AC
Source: ZOO BIOLOGY Volume: 14 Issue: 6 Pages: 543-553 Published: 1995
This is also a very good article, especially for myself as a keeper and breeder, but this may go a little in depth for a wiki article. Although I'm loathe to do it, would you reccomend me adding a further reading section and incorporating some of these?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For fun, consider cleaning up (i.e. removing) empty citation template parameters. Also, accessdate parameters are not required if no external web site was accessed
will do, thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting, readable article that will make a fine addition to the FA list. Personally, I like the new further reading section with additional high-quality sources of detailed information about the topic. It makes it a better resource and a springboard for students researching the topic. Is it overkill for a general-readership article? Maybe, but its conveniently at the end, so those who aren't interested can ignore it. Sasata (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!


Support: mostly well written. Well done.

  • "Unlike in most iguanids, females guard their nest sites"—First two words ungrammatical.
fixed
  • "Although the wild population is in decline because of predation by feral animals and habitat loss caused by human agricultural development, their numbers are increasing as a result of captive-breeding and other conservation programs." Does "their" refer to "feral animals"? It's the only preceding plural.
refers to iguanas, I changed this
  • "has served as"—"has been". I caught myself writing that very phrase a few weeks ago.
I went with "has been" leaning toward "has been used as"
  • "aforementioned"? This is pretty awkward. Is a back-reference necessary?
fixed
  • Why is "fingerprint" linked? Why is "scavenging" linked? And "prehistoric"? These are all common words with no particular technical dimension here.
I think someone was trying to help me out, although I did link fingerprint
  • "However" is better at the start of a clause.
fixed
  • "Special" begs too many answers. I'd just remove it.
removed
  • "... the animals are treated well and protected by U.S. forces stationed at the base. An unusual incident occurred when a detainee in the prison assaulted a guard with a bloody tail torn from a Cuban iguana in May 2005." I don't quite see this last sentence as pertinent to the topic. It's too easy to interpret it as "US military—good. Islamic terrorist prisoners—bad." Why tempt providence with such a sensitive issue?
I thought it was an interesting anecdote, although the original version I heard from a Marine was the guy hit the guard with the whole iguana, the paper reported it as the tail. Not going so much for a good guy vs bad guy angle. Original version I simply had "treated well and protected by residents of the base", either at peer-review or GAN they asked me to clarify. It does set up the human rights question made by the lawyer as "Iguanas treated better than people"
  • U.S. then US. Personally, I much prefer the undotted version, but it must be consistent.
fixed
  • "By way of comparison"—two redundant words?
fixed
  • The difference of 20% was in what respect?
number of head bobs and duration of head bobs, pauses, etc. Here are two distinct species, communicating in a very similar manner...maybe as close as Middle English and Modern English. Whereas the same species moved to another island and isolated is speaking a totally different language. It's hard to write it without making it sound as boring as a dog's ass.
  • Perhaps "was by only six".
fixed
  • Unsure it needs "in captivity".
I removed it
  • "Unlike on"—there it is again. I think "unlike" can't be followed by a preposition. "In contrast to"? Tony (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks Tony! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Ucuchua been asked to revist this FAC? Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him at least twice, the last time was on 12/31 and it's still on his talk page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:46, 12 January 2010 [136].

Third Test, 1948 Ashes series edit

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is one of the articles from the set Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates/The Invincibles/archive1. This match was most infamous for the controversial omission of the leading England batsman Len Hutton. Also, despite one day's play being washed out and rain being prevalent, it broke a record for the most spectators at a Test match in England, showing how popular the 1948 Australians were YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - 2c is good, handful of fixits here Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on refs' In notes but not refs: Harte and Whimpress, Perry (2002) • Ling.Nut 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done the oversights mentioned by Lingnut and fifelfoo YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This sentence is currently at the end of Background: "Yardley won the toss and elected to bat." I think this should be in the day one summary, as it is in the articles on the Fourth and Fifth Tests. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now for an extended review from me, not just a one-off comment. Most of it looks good, as I would expect. I only found a handful or so of issues that jumped out at me while reading the article:
  • Day One: "who compared him to Harold Larwood, a 1930s paceman targeted batsmen with Bodyline." Missing "who" in this sentence.
  • Day Two: "with on foot on the edge of the cut strip and he was unable to evade the ball." Second word is a typo.
  • Day Three: "and Emmett edged it to wicket-keeper Tallon, who took it in his right hand with taking a dive." Is "with taking a dive" a cricket phrase? If not, it doesn't sound that grammatical. Should it be "while taking a dive"? (can you tell I'm unfamiliar with cricket?)
  • "There position was aided by the Australian fielders". "There" → "Their".
  • "and was again dropped by Hassett. Hassett." Try to adjust so that repetition of the name isn't there.
  • Aftermath: "in order to fulfil Bradman's aim of going through the tour undefeated." Is "fulfil" a typo? (not sure if it's some Australian varient of fulfill) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all except the last. Wiktionary says one l is correct for BrE YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Support – Another excellent cricket article from YM, which is of similar quality to the articles on 1948 Ashes matches that are already featured. Prose looks fine after the fixes above, and the sourcing is top-notch, as one would expect from YM. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I had to run both dash and date scripts on the article. Shouldn't have to be done by a reviewer. Australian date formats required.
thanks for the date thing. I usually just prefer hardcode as being easier to work with because some text editors don't tell the diff between dashes n/m and hyphen and kill it off when I put it in there.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names of anglophone countries (there are seven, I guess) are not linked unless there's a really good reason to do so. Many readers won't get it, that the opening links are to cricket teams. You have to be in the know to realise that they're called, loosely, by their country name. I don't suppose that they could be piped to "the Australia and England national cricket teams"? Generally skilfully linked.
I avoided using national as ENG represents two nations and tweaked it around YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Test(s)" when generic (not part of a title) should be "test(s)".
Well, per WP:CRIC Tests have been capped everywhere adn in all prior FAs, including some you already reviewed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It's Test cricket. I would say it's an important cap, as test cricket sounds like it's a warm-up or a practice match, an unfortunate ambiguity. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so Australia thus"—two causal words? "and thus Australia".
done thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • after ... after, plus another after a few seconds later. There's a lot of need for chronological sequence items, so have you two or three that can be rotated, or standard methods for rewording some instances? "at ... at". Watch those reps throughout. Where is my script for flagging close reps? Who will write it?
Mixed it up YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "retained The Ashes"—you sure it normally has a T mid-sentence? Looks odd. Tony (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally yes, but the article is at "The Ashes" so... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The best cricket RS do usually capitalise the t. I suppose it's a reflection of the superstitious awe in which they are held by English and Australian cricket fans; and a lot of those elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Images all free and appropriately labeled, a tad dull, maybe add File:Ashes_Urn.jpg to the opening paragraph, but nothing that would hinder FA candidacy Fasach Nua (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, comprehensive and complies with MOS.--Grahame (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- prose, detail, sourcing, and style all look good. A few comments but nothing serious enough to affect support:

  • Prefer to see an image in the lead para.
  • Pedantry, but set a new record is redundant. If you set a record, it's new by its nature. I know everyone uses "new record" but that doesn't make it correct.
  • Likewise, it'd be nice to fight common but incorrect usage of "England" and "Australia" (as in the cricket teams) taking "their" as the possessive instead of "its" - you could fix and keep everyone happy by changing "England" and "Australia" to "the English" and "the Australians". I realise of course that this usage is probably in all similar articles and therefore a lost cause but still... ;-)

Anyway, well played, suh! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [137].

Anna Anderson edit

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A notorious impostor who leapt into a canal to kill herself, ran around naked on a Park Avenue roof, and spent time in an asylum, believed by some to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (also a featured article). DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported at the last FAC - doing so again. :) This is such an interesting article. If you want a cool story to tell friends, read this FAC! ('Cuz that is why we read FACs.) Awadewit (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Real life commitments got in the way of my adding my support the last time. This is a well-written and engaging article and such a fascinating story. Graham Colm Talk 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment section one daldorf asylum it is stated that she was "admitted to the Elisabeth Hospital in Lützowstrasse." Now my german might be a little rusty but strasse means "street" as far as I am aware. Now that would imply it is a street and that the hospital is "on" lutzowstrasse. Can anyone verify the statement or correct me? Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should we link to "émigré Captain"? it doesn't seem like a standard term. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do find the change in name in reference to anna anderson half way through the article somewhat confusing. I do think that we should use a standard name throughout the article. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the idea of using "Anderson" throughout because it pre-empts the part where she becomes Anderson, weakens her introduction as an unknown, and I prefer the biography to be in chronological order. Perhaps we should consider using "Anna" instead of "Tschaikovsky" and "Anderson", since the first name is common to both identities? DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • Cecilie signed a declaration that Tschaikovsky was Anastasia, but her family implied she was suffering from dementia.
    Might "her" and "she" not be confusingly referring to Cecilie or Tschaikovsky? Maybe this can be reworked to be clearer?
  • "... a tuberculous infection of her arm ..."
    Pardon my medical ignorance, what is "a tuberculous infection"?
  • Is there a way to either confirm which is it, or to link it to a general condition to help readers, such as me, who might be unfamiliar with what sort of medical condition it is? Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I can't tell what the illness was in modern terms. The sources just say a tuberculous/tubercular infection complicated by Staphyloccal infection. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it cannot be helped then, but I leave this unstruck in hopes that some other editor can offer suggestions here. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Melnik coached Tschaikovsky with details of life in the imperial family."
    Source?
  • The two sources supporting this clause are given earlier in the sentence: Godl, John (August 1998), "Anastasia: The Unmasking of Anna Anderson", The European Royal History Journal (VI), Oakland: Arturo Beeche: 3–8 and and Gilliard, Pierre (1929) La Fausse Anastasie quoted by von Nidda in his commentary on I, Anastasia, p. 198. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps those two sources (at the ends of the preceding clauses) should be shifted to the end of the sentence instead? I am not too hard on this though. Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She became apathetic and depressed, was declared insane on 19 September 1916, spent time in two lunatic asylums, and went missing in early 1920."
    There seems to be a lot of ideas in this single sentence, perhaps break it into two shorter ones?
  • "Leuchtenberg's son, Dmitri, was completely certain Tschaikovsky was an impostor and was recognized by Felix as his sister, ..."
    Eh, Dimitri "was recognized by Felix as his sister"?
  • "... remained for just over a year."
    "Just" could be misconstrued as a POV-ish context, why not "slightly more than a year" or just "more than a year"?
  • "... peripatetically ..."
    This word might be of a higher level than the average 16–18-year-old student is familiar with (I had to look it up). The way it is used is eloquent, but is it possible to substitute with simpler words to achieve the same result?
  • "... "still unique", though the database of DNA patterns ..."
    By "unique", did Dr Melton mean that he would not have expected such a pattern to match? Or did he mean that such a matching pattern cannot be confused with others? In the latter case, then it should be "... "still unique"; the database of DNA patterns ...", right?
  • I believe she meant that the only sequence in the database that matches that of Anderson was that from Maucher. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other works based on the premise that Anderson was Anastasia, written before the DNA tests, include biographies by Peter Kurth and James Blair Lovell. More recent biographies by John Klier, Robert Massie and Frances Welch that describe her as an impostor were written after the DNA tests proved she was not Anastasia."
    Not sure these require cites (since they are the sources for this article), but if needed, then I guess a footnote pointing this out would suffice.
  • I prefer to avoid adding footnotes unless required to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tend to agree, but am leaving this unstruck in case others have a different opinion. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly, other animated versions utilize parts of Anderson's discredited escape story for inspiration, and include scenes of Anastasia's escape on a cart or characters such as Alexander Tschaikovsky."
    Source(s)?
  • The discredited escape story is discussed in the preceding section, but the scenes described are from a straight-to-video/dvd cartoon that I have never seen. The only way I can deal with objections to this sentence is to remove it. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with the discredited escape story (described earlier), but the description of scenes does need a cite, even if from the video (as a primary source) itself. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll remove it, if only until the specific cartoon is identified. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I find this to be a very well written and comprehensive article that was enjoyable to read. I would support it once the above are cleared up. However, ... (see below) Jappalang (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the clarification of the above and the resolution of the images, I support this article for Featured Article status. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in depth review. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image grounds Image review:

  • (Amendment) File:Anna1922berlin.jpg: turns out the book this photo was in is still copyrighted in the US. (Previous statement) File:Anna1922berlin (bigger).jpg: The supporting {{PD-US}} is wrong (creation does not equal publishing). If the photo was verifiably sold to a newspaper agency before 1923, then it should be {{PD-1923}}. If not, then the first publishing is 1929 in Gilliard's book. In that case, {{PD-US-1996}} should be used instead.
  • There seems to be a misunderstanding. What I meant was that the Commons copy can be used, but its copyright status in the US should be clarified either to PD-1923 or PD-US-1996, depending on the publication date. Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure they apply since it was not published before 1923 and if published in 1929, then it might still be in copyright in 1999. How about commons:template:PD-old-80? DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crap, I was reminded by your statement to check if Gillard's book and its contents were copyrighted (and renewed) in the US. This turned out to be the result; registration AF3490 on 6 Mar 29, renewed R171272 on 28 May 56, which means the book and contents are copyrighted in US until 2025 (1929 + 95 + 1), according to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (works published abroad 1923–77, complying with US formalities). This photo cannot be stored on Wikipedia or Commons as a "free" photo. Since we have File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg (with a modified enlargement of the face), this might not even qualify as fair use identification. Unless there is some critical commentary on this photo (or of the subject's appearance in it), it should be excised. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points: (1) Gilliard does not hold copyright of the photograph. He can't justifiably renew or claim copyright on something he doesn't own. If necessary, it can be cropped to remove his text, but the text is probably too simple for copyright to apply. (2) File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg is a picture of Schanzkowska. The other is a picture of Anderson. I think the lead picture should be of Anderson. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • US old copyright laws did not care for "true ownership" of a work until the Universal Copyright Convention was established in 1952 (and accepted by US in 1954); the first to register a work's copyright in US actually got the US copyright (several court battles resulted because of this). Gilliard holds the US copyright (by US laws) if he registered it first in US. Even if not, by registering the copyright, Gilliard by proxy registered it for the (unidentified) photographer, which is still valid for US copyright. The point is unless the book disclaims copyright for the photo, it is copyrighted under US law. This would be moot if it can be proven that the photo was published in another foreign source before it ever appeared in Gilliard's book. Jappalang (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know that it was previously published, so I have added a fair-use rationale. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rationale works for me; although it can be argued that placements of it and the image of Schanzkowska could be exchanged in the article, I will leave that for others to debate on. One point though, by registering for US copyright, Gilliard did announce an intent to publish it in US; whether he produced physical copies in the States and whether they are in English are other matters. Thus, I leave this unstruck but considered it cleared. Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kszenyija Georgijevna of Russia.jpg: when was this copy of the painting first published? It is certainly not Les Portraits de Philippe A. de László, which can be read here at Internet Archive. UK copyright laws deem publishing as "copies made available to public via sales or other legal means". As László's works are private commisions, they are unpublished until copies (such as this grey-and-white photo) are released. László died in 1937, which means any of his work published during 1923–77 could have their US copyright renewed by the URAA treaty.
  • I never claimed it was published in 1922; I'm using that source to demonstrate that it was painted before 1923. I do not know when it was first published as a photograph or print. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, understood. Regardless, painting (creation) does not equal publication, and we would need a publishing date for that black and white photo (or an earlier reproduction in any form). Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, those four photos are verifiably in the public domain. I would suggest having Rachmanioff's photo, which looks more outstanding than photos of Imperator. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner in Anastasia trailer.jpg: This capture is a copyviolation. The claim that its source (the trailer) did not bear a copyright notice is false; it is prominently displayed at the 0:41–0:47 mark of the trailer, and the copyright was renewed by 20th Century Fox as well.
  • This point will be moot as soon as the file is deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the decision on deletion is taking some time, and the discussion of whether the copyrights of films extend to their trailers appears unresolved [138], I have replaced it with a free image of Bergman: File:Ingrid Bergman 1946.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rowe's shot of Bergman is verifiably in the public domain (taken during his duties as an NPS employee). Note that the Anastasia shots are copyvios because the trailer bore a copyright notice that was renewed, not because of its movie version (I should note that Sabucat is the primary cause for all erroneous uploads of trailer shots with his claim that all trailers before 1968 never carried copyright notice). Jappalang (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining image, File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg, is verifiably in the public domain if we accept that the two sources pointed out never named the author. File:Botkin,Gleb.jpg is acceptable since no such photo has appeared before its upload here, and the user has stated it is his own work. Jappalang (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • After reading the introduction, I don't really get the point. Perhaps add some context about Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, and why claiming to be her could be taken seriously. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. I've made an edit which hopefully addresses this [139]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [140].

Peter Heywood edit

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Peter Heywood was the Bounty mutineer who got away. Denounced, captured, tried and sentenced to hang, he was given a Royal Pardon and then allowed to continue his naval career, becoming a favourite of the top brass who were happy to accelerate his promotion. How did this come about? There are murky elements in this story—hints of bribery, perjury, and class prejudice, and somewhere along the line three men were executed. Heywood's story throws some fascinating light on the workings of the British Navy in the late 18th century, and provides a new dimension to the oft-told tales of "Captain Bligh and Mr Christian". Thanks to Ruhrfisch for the map, and to others for generous peer review help; I believe this is now ready for FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed the prose in this article extensively at the peer review and see no point in repeating it. In my view, it amply meets the FA qualifications. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for the helpful review attention. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dabs or dead externals, and alt text looks good. Dates are all Day Month Year. --an odd name 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: after correcting some stuff on the images (and uploading a few better ones), they are all verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport:

  • "In 1791 Heywood and his companions were captured in Tahiti by the search vessel HMS Pandora and transported back to England in irons. This voyage was prolonged and eventful; Pandora was wrecked on the Great Barrier Reef, four of Heywood's fellow-prisoners were drowned, and Heywood himself was fortunate to survive."
    My reading gave me the initial impression that he was "transported back to England" by Pandora, which becomes a puzzlement since it was wrecked on the Reef. Could this be clarified?
    I've amended to: "...by the search vessel HMS Pandora and held in irons for transportation to England. The subsequent journey was prolonged and eventful;..." I hope that is clearer.
  • "... Douglas, Isle of Man, the fifth of the eleven children ..."
    Is this where (between "... Man, the fifth ...") a dash would be better, or by breaking the following clause into a short sentence?
    I've gone for the second of your options, as a dash looks intrusive.
  • "... as sailing master to Captain James Cook on the latter's final voyage."
    Suggestion: "... as Captain James Cook's sailing master during the explorer's final voyage."
    Suggestion accepted.
  • File:Tahiti scene frontispiece.jpg's caption seems to be wrong... the title of the drawing is "George Young and his wife (Hannah Adams) of Pitcairn Islands" (as from the book), which seems to indicate this is Batty's vision of life at Pitcairn Islands, not Tahiti...
    Yes, I didn't read the title carefully enough. George Young was the son of the mutineer Edward Young, and was not born until after the events described in this article. The picture probably dates from the 1820s, and is barely relevant to Heywood's story. Rather than contrive a connection, I have replaced the image with Bligh's sectional drawing of a breadfruit plant (which was in an earlier version of the article but was dropped because of image clutter). Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... all the 14 surviving Tahiti fugitives ..."
    This makes it sound like the fugitives were Tahiti natives... "... fugitives in Tahiti ..."?
    Agreed, done
  • "... Montagu of Hector ... was "my particular friend" ..."
    Heywood's or Paley's friend? Perhaps drop "my" from the quote and identify whose friend Montagu was?
    Done
  • Did Heywood ever go back to Tahiti for his first wife and daughter?
    There is no record that he did.
  • "The only known child of Heywood ..."
    I think you meant "The only confirmed child of Heywood ...", right?
    Yes, OK

Great read, Heywood's court-martial was so full of COI then... I would like some clarification of the above niggles first. With the clarifications, I support this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, to which I have responded. How does it look? Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made the map for the article and made a few comments about it in peer review, where I felt it was already ready to pass FAC. I have made one edit since and reread it carefully. My only quibble is whether it would be better to identify the breadfruit plant illustation as Sections of the breadfruit plant, from Bligh's book, rather than the current Sections of the breadfruit plant, drawn by Mackenzie (since the image page makes it clear that the identity of Mackenzie is not known). Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your map work, and for your support, also for your suggestion relating to the breadfruit drawing. I will fix the caption accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose While this article is very well-written and engaging, I feel that it is not quite comprehensive. More needs to be said about Heywood's career after the Bounty incident. I read the Dictionary of National Biography entry on Heywood and it provides some more details, such as his participation in what appears to be the Napoleonic Wars, and it also lists the following source, which may be helpful: A. C. F. David, ‘From mutineer to hydrographer: the surveying career of Peter Heywood’, International Hydrographic Review, new ser., 3/2 (2002), 6–11. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can add more about his post-pardon career, though I am reluctant to add too much. The main focus of the article must be on the part of his life which was notable. His later career, while honourable, was far less notable, and had he not been the ex-Bounty mutineer he would, I am sure, have remained one of hundreds of naval officers who served their country honourably but anonymously. I have plenty of sources, including the DNB entry (but not the David article to which you refer) and it should'nt take too long to put something together, but give me 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I have expanded the "Subsequent career" section to give more details of Heywood's various appointments and activities after he resumed his naval career. There's a bit more about his hydrography activities, and mention is made of what seems to be his one and only direct engagement with the French during the Napoleonic wars - the clash with the frigates in the Bay of Biscay. Other events are touched on - but his career was worthy rather than action-filled. He was mainly well away from the heat of battle. I think the general tenor of his career (conscientious, honourable obscurity) is properly represented with the new material. I have had to slightly reconstruct the latter part of the article, but nothing of significance has been removed. I am happy with this balance. Let me know your feelings. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - these improvements are even better than I was hoping for - BB, you always exceed expectations! I am happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your review, support and kind comments. Brianboulton (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support an excellent biographical article providing just the right amount of background on the mutiny. As Awadewit, I would also be interested to know a bit more about his actions during the Napoleonic Wars. --DavidCane (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. See per above what I've done to extend the information on Heywood's subsequent career, and by all means add a comment. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. I've added a link to British invasions of the Río de la Plata.--DavidCane (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I added a note that the ODNB requires a fee, since it's only free to library card holders in the UK) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The one that got away...fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [141].

Wife selling (English custom) edit

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It's no hoax. For about 200 years it was popularly believed in England that publicly auctioning your wife was a legitimate alternative to divorce. Hopefully this little historical backwater will be of interest to some. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This made Did you know about a week ago. Good to see it here this soon; just make sure the technicals are tidy. --an odd name 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I think I've got all the dates and fixed the two dablinks. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No dab links. Ref dates are all Day Month Year now. --an odd name 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'll sign off on CPI being the correct measure here for the worth of money over time, even though a £100 wife seems more like a luxury good than part of the unskilled consumer bundle :). The low sums indicate that wives were clearly being treated as consumption goods, and their productive qualities assumed (or at least treated as standard or defrayment of operating costs). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: after some corrections and tidying up, images are verifiably in the public domain (although the status of File:Contemporary wife selling print georgian scrapbook 1949.jpg is dependent on the claims of a Master's thesis). Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for inciting my wife to knock my head for "Don't get any ideas!" while reading this article. Support for writing this fine article that highlights the status of women in ole English society and the early evolution of their rights. Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing refs Finlay 2005, p. 15 • Ling.Nut 04:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent article. Oh, the good old days {: 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)
  • Comments -
  • Newspapers and magazines in your references need to be italicised.
  • Current ref 53 lacks a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed Parrot of Doom 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a tweak; William Murray was commonly known simply as "Lord Mansfield"; you might want to change that. Other than that, consider this a support. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find where the article says this, so maybe Parrot of Doom's already sorted it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't, that's the point. See the image tag "William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield viewed wife selling as conspiracy to commit adultery." and the paragraph next to it "Lord Chief Justice William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield...". It is normally just "Lord Mansfield". Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment: An engaging read in which I found a few relatively minor issues for consideration:-

  • The lead contains the statement "I do not think I have a right to prevent it". This is part of a statement which is cited in the main text and therefore does not need to be cited in the lead. Likewise, the statement about cases of local Poor Law Commissioners forcing husbands to sell their wives rather than having to maintain the family in workhouses is cited both in the lead and the text, as is the story that in 1913 a woman claimed that she had been sold to one of her husband's workmates for £1.
    • True, but I went with the principle that extraordinary claims need extraordinary citations. I'm quite happy to remove them if it's a blocker for you. My understanding though is that quotations have to be attributed immediately after their appearance. Happy to to be proven wrong though. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right about quotations being cited on appearance. What I would do is put an uncited paraphrase in the lead and put the quote, cited, into the text. That avoids have double citations for the same information. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, there are now no citations or quotations in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the "James Bryce" quoted is Lord Bryce, the English jurist, he should be linked.
  • "the wife's consent was a necessary condition for the sale" is a slightly odd statement, bearing in mind that the sales were not recognised in law. Perhaps it should be preceded by "by common agreement..."
    • I don't see the issue here. The wife wasn't dragged unwillingly to the sale, and several of the accounts make it clear that if she onjected to her purchaser then the sale didn't go ahead. Whether that was "legal" or not seems irrelevant, as the law itself was at that time eqiovocal. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is that "necessary condition" is a legal, or at least legalistic, phrase, and its use implies the existence of rules governing wife selling procedure. These "rules" were by common agreement, not law. This should be clarified, hence my suggestion above.
        • OK. I've changed it to the simpler "the wife had to agree to the sale". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Of the 158 cases in which occupation can be established, the largest group (19) were involved in the livestock or transport trades, 14 worked in the building trade, 5 were blacksmiths, 4 were chimney-sweeps, and 2 were described as gentlemen..." That accounts for 44 out of 158. It is hard to imagine what the remaining 114 different occupations might have been - just curious.
    • Do you intend to respond? Can you think of 114 different occupations each so different from one another that none can be classified as a group? Perhaps the quoted figures are incorrect? Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've checked, and the figures are exactly as Thompson gives them. He's only analysed certain occupations into groups; the remainder, such as pauper (2), pensioner (2), gingerbread hawker (1), woodward (1), returned from transportation (2), etc., aren't categorised. The point he's making is that it wasn't just a rural peasant custom. Even gentlemen and at least one Duke bought a wife. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this section confusing: "The lengths to which some of those involved in such sales would go to legalise the trade is demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum.[nb 3] It is contained in a petition in 1768, to a Justice of the Peace in Somerset, presented by a wife who about 18 months previously had been sold by her husband for £6 6s "for the support of his extravagancy". The petition does not object to the sale; rather that her husband returned three months later, and demanded more money from his wife and her new "husband"."
    • First, the wording "The lengths to which some of those involved in such sales would go" sounds POVish rather than neutral
      • I'm not sure how you can infer a POV here. The phrasing implies that people sought to make the ritual and sale as legal as possible, which was the case. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, your wording implies that the steps people would go to to legalise the trade were extraordinary. That's the POV. Otherwise you would simply say "Those involved in such sales took steps to legalise the trade, as demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum" or similar neutral wording. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed to "Those involved in such sales sometimes attempted to legalise the transaction, as demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Secondly, what does "it" refer to in "It is contained..."
      • "is demonstrated by a bill of sale for a wife, preserved in the British Museum.[nb 3] It is contained in a petition" - perfectly clear to me that "It" refers to the bill. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The last object mentioned before "it" is the British Museum, so "it" should be replaced by "The bill..."
          • Nobody will assume that the British Museum could ever be found inside a petition. Parrot of Doom 18:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed to "The bill is contained in a petition ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirdly, I can't see that what follows indicates "the lengths to which some would go..." etc
      • Drawing up a bill of sale, akin to a legal document, is a pretty clear indicator that the ritual was seen by many as perfectly legitimate, and not merely an archaic ceremony for a bit of fun. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, reads OK if the "lengths" phrase is removed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting if these points can be ironed out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the responses and am pleased to support the article now. Hope to see it as TFA someday soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you even begin to imagine the mayhem? Thanks Brian. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to nominate it at the earliest appropriate opportunity. Brianboulton (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all but the very wealthiest" Is "very wealthiest" idiomatic (not a rhetorical question)? Seems to me that "wealthiest" gets the point across without the intensifier. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point I'm trying to get across is that divorce was really only an option for the super-rich, the wealthiest of the wealthy. I think "very wealthiest" is OK, but I'm not wedded to it if others object. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leave it be; I'm not too bothered. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a minor inconsistency: "paid 7s. 6d." (dots are there), but "She was sold for 2s 6d" (no dots). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been such a long time since we used £sd that I had to check whether or not it was usually written with dots, but it seems that it was, so I've added them where they were missing. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [142].

Justus edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it's been copyedited several times by Malleus, been through a very helpful peer review, and now is ready to shine on the big stage. Well, as much as any medieval bishop can shine... Yet another (and hopefully last) of the Gregorian mission bishops, this guy's a bit more shadowy than even Mellitus, since we don't have the gout or the miracles to colour up his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I promise you that this one is the last one for a while. They raised the requirements for Featured Topics, so I had to bring two more bishops up to FA standards...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justus (occasionally Iustus) Given that Latin lacked a "J", wouldn't it always have been Iustin in the Latin texts? In other words, isn't one just a transliteration of the other?
  • Yeah, but one modern author has decided to say "Iustus" .. why I do not know. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''Rochester seems a bit terse even as a heading - Bishop of... perhaps
  • Support Not the most exciting of the bishops, is he? Nevertheless, a clearly written and (I take it from reading the commentary on the talk page here) a comprehensive article. Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, well, he wasn't supposed to hit FAC, but they changed the requirements for Featured Topics and he was more FA-able than my other choices... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Overall excellent and of a professional standard. Just a couple matters of clarification that tripped me up while I was reading:
    • "survives in the Textus Roffensis and a copy based on this" Unsure what "this" is referring to.
      • clarified to "... survives in the Textus Roffensis, as well as a copy based on the Textus in the 14th-century Liber Temporalium." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two seemingly contradictory sentences are confusing me: "after Laurence's death, Mellitus became Archbishop of Canterbury" and then "Bede's account of Eadbald's conversion states that it was Laurence, Justus' predecessor at Canterbury". The former suggests that Mellitus succeeded Laurence as Archbishop of Canterbury (which I believe is true), and the latter suggests (at least to me) that Justus succeeded Laurence directly.
      • Predecessor doesn't always mean immediate, unfortunately. I could drop the "predecessor" and make it "Bede's account of Eadbald's conversion states that it was Laurence, an earlier Archbishop of Canterbury..." if you like. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, that would just be weasel-wording on my account. I wasn't aware of the scope of that word, clearly. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [143].

Tchaikovsky and the Five edit

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is an article on a known but little-discussed (in the West) area of Russian classical music, one that helped shape Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as a creative personality and determined his outcome as a composer. After much work and input through peer review, for which I am thankful to my fellow Wiki editors, I believe this article is of a depth, bredth and overall quality to be nominated for FA status. Jonyungk (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dab links or external links (dead or otherwise)—good.
  • Alt text looks good. I had thought of adding details to the Martin painting alt, but they'd distract from the ultimate point of the article IMO.
  • I couldn't find any full dates (i.e. with months, days, and years); make sure any that are present have a consistent format in the prose and in the refs.

--an odd name 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Is the article intended to be in UK or US English? At present there are spellings from each in it (e.g. UK recognised, counsellor and programme but US theater, color and program). It really ought to be consistent throughout. Happy to give it the once-over if you say whether it should be UK or US. - Tim riley (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your offer. The spellings should be US, not UK. Jonyungk (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Only a handful of changes: I have of course not tampered with any UK spellings within quotations. I'll go through the article in the next few days and offer any more general comments. At first sight it looks like a plausible FA candidate, but more a.s.a.p. - Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later: This is an excellent article, highly readable and full (but not too full) of relevant information. Everything that seems to need a reference has one (though see my comment below on one para in the Tchaikovsky's private concerns about the Five section) and no one source is relied on too heavily. I look forward to adding my support for its elevation to FA. In advance of that, a few, not on the whole earth-shaking, comments:

    • Thank you very much for all the comments below, nearly all of which I have incorporated. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • You use lower case for the definite article in "the Five" but capitalise the article in "The Mighty Handful." Is this deliberate? (I notice you use a lower case "the Mighty Handful" later in the article.)
    • "verbally" – I think you mean "orally" – verbally means with words (spoken, written or printed)
    • m-dashes – I believe the WP standard for such parenthetical dashes is to use n-dashes with a space on either side, but someone with a better knowledge of the MOS may like to confirm or otherwise
    • "the older Rimsky-Korsakov" – ambiguous: it could be read either as meaning Nikolai when older or else some other, senior, Rimsky-Korsakov. Something like "and, by then, Rimsky Korsakov" might be clearer.
  • Early years
    • "the first presentation of an opera occurred in Russia" – "occurred" is a strange word here: perhaps omit it?
    • "composers, these composers" – suggest "composers, they"
    • "Likewise, while the first public concert" – there are two likewises in this sentence. Perhaps "similarly" for the second?
    • "native-born" – tautology: just "native" is enough
  • 'The Five
    • "style and color that was different" - style and color that were different?
  • Rubinstein and the St. Petersburg Conservatory
    • "performed and composed in Europe" – As St. Petersburg and Moscow are in Europe too, perhaps this should read "Western Europe" or some such
    • "Leipzig" – I'd be inclined to blue-link this, I think
  • Difference in Russianness
    • "thrown out of the Preobrazhensky Lifeguard regiment" – rather colloquial for an encyclopaedia article, possibly?
  • With the Five
    • "that resulted Romeo and Juliet" – missing "in", I think
    • "After hearing Tchaikovsky play the final movement of this symphony" – a piano reduction, I imagine: perhaps worth spelling out?
    • "a tone poem based in this subject" – based on?
  • Balakirev
    • "…Russian Music Society (RMS) orchestra. His replacement at the RMS was Balakirev." A bit convoluted; you could simplify on the lines of "…Russian Music Society orchestra, and was replaced by Balakirev." (RMS does not occur later in the article, so the parenthetical mention is not needed)
    • "he looked forward to discussing the piece with him on an upcoming trip to Moscow" – it isn't clear which of them would be making the trip; the casual reader may not immediately remember at this point who was based in St. Petersburg and who in Moscow. Might be worth clarifying.
      • I have clarified briefly that Balakirev was writing from St. Petersburg. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rimsky-Korsakov
    • "its charming orchestration ... its structural novelty, and most of all by the freshness" – this would read more easily if you replaced the "by" with dots.
  • Stasov, The Tempest and the Little Russian symphony
    • "center the plot around the heroine" – some people get frightfully exercised by "centre around", insisting that it should be "centre on". I am indifferent, personally, but I just mention it.
  • Tchaikovsky's private concerns about the Five
    • "he wrote to von Meck" – Russian usage may well be different but in German usage when referring to Herr X von Y by surname alone, the "von" is not used – thus one refers to e.g. Karajan or Bismarck not von Karajan or von Bismarck. I just raise the point so that you can assure yourself that including the "von" here is idiomatic – e.g. does David Brown so refer to her?
      • Brown used either "Mrs." or her first name before "von". I have changed the passages in question to match. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Tchaikovsky's analysis of each of the Five was unsparing". This paragraph contains three strongly expressed judgments: are they all covered by the one reference at the end of the para? Decidedly POV if not.
      • They were all covered by the reference, but I have repeated that reference in the other two sentences in question out of clarity. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balakirev returns
    • "Tchaikovsky declined the project at first, claiming the subject left him cold." This reads as though Tchaikovsky was lying. A more neutral verb such as "saying" might be safer.

– Tim riley (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is an excellent candidate for FA, in my opinion. It demonstrably meets FA criteria 1(a), (c), (d), and (e) and 2, 3, and 4, and speaking as a devotee of classical music (though not a Tchaikovsky specialist) I see absolutely no reason to doubt that it meets criterion 1(b) as well. In passing, let me add that it is one of the best-written articles I have had the pleasure of reading for quite some time. Loud applause! - Tim riley (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have peer reviewed this twice, with the second PR closing only a day ago. The article has improved considerably in the time since I first reviewed it and all of my concerns from both PRs have been addressed. In the interest of full disclosure, I made the composite lead image from free images. The article is interesting and very well-done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all issues fixed at 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC), archived at Talk: Fifelfoo (talk)

Support. I have reviewed this article twice for peer review, and it has improved much since the first version I read. Jonyungk has made the article both more in-depth and more accessible, and I believe that it now solidly meets all FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: An excellent article, part (I hope) of a Tchaikovsky series that becomes ever more compelling. I heavily reviwed this at the PR stage and have no further comments to add besides sincere congratulations on a fine effort. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images—the images need a lot of work:
    • File:Youngtchaik.jpg—the used PD template requires the image to be public domain in its country of origin, but it is not demonstrably so listed.
      • This image is stored on Wikipedia (not Commons), and hence need only be PD in US (hence, the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag). Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that, but the template clearly says that it's only PD in the US if it's also PD in the country of origin by 1996, and there's no assertion of that anywhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Looks like I misread Dave's concern; the image is PD in its country of origin (Russia) on Jan 1, 1996, because it is unlikely its author (who took the photo of young Tchaikovsky in 1863) would only have died within 70 years of Jan, 1996 (admittedly a very fine line; compare that to Balakirev below).
      • If that does not pass muster, then might I suggest this image of young Tchaikovsky (again 1863), which definitely can be stored on at least Wikipedia with {{PD-1923}} by virtue of publishing in 1906 or earlier. Jappalang (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Rubinstein repin.jpg—missing most information such as author dates, source, date of publication (if the license is to be valid), et al.
      • A higher resolution version of the same image under the same file name was on Commons, with complete author, dates, etc. I deleted the version here so the Commons version is now used in the article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was File:Feodor Chaliapin as Ivan Susanin.jpg ever published? That would be the better license to use, and due to the Russian text I can't be sure this is valid (no mention of original copyrights again).
      • A source of where this image was gotten is definitely needed. The Russian text on the image's page only states where it was taken. Without an author (and with creation just at the start of the 20th century), it is not definite that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Balakirev1860s CuiIP 73 600.jpg—no author dates given or verifiable, needed
      • If the book states the painting was an 1860s creation, then it (the page and quote) should be stated and cited, but it would be more definite if the actual author (and life) can be cited. A 20-year-old in 1869 might live to be 80 in 1929. Although his works would be in public domain in this year, URAA might have restored copyrights if his works were first published post-1922. Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As with the image of the young Tchaikovsky, I would hate to delete this image from the article, but should it be removed at this juncture? Jonyungk (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Turns out that while there are so many books with references to Balakirev, illustrations of him are scant... Of my initial search, I could only find this illustration in volume 40 of The Windsor Magazine (1914) that could be stored at least on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • An older Balakirev here in Outlines of Music History (1913). Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That appears to be a version of File:Balakirev 1904 Elson.PNG, which is on Commons and in the composite lead image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is quite similar to the one in the Outlines. Anyway, I am reminded that the composite and the portraits of the Five should be on Wikipedia instead. Although published in a US publication, it is more probable the images were first published abroad and reprinted here (hence their source country copyrights are yet undetermined). The Tchaikovsky image is fine on Commons since it was created during his visit to United States (and first published there as yet, thus qualifying as a United States work), but the Five would be better here on Wikipedia. Jappalang (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks - it was here originally, so I just un-deleted it and put a Do not move to Commons template on it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found what looks to be an oil pianting of him on the Naxos website and have emailed Naxos asking for details on the artist and date. Since he died in 1910, I thought there might be a good chance of it being PD. If it is old enough to be free, there is a much higher resolution version of it here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (out) Thanks very much for your help with all this. For the time being, I will delete File:Balakirev1860s CuiIP 73 600.jpg from the article and hope to put another image in its place eventually. For instance, how would I go about capturing the image from The Windsor Magazine? It shows a relatively young Balakirev, which I had hoped to use since it shows how balakirev looked at approximately the time he met Tchaikovsky. Jonyungk (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Miranda - The Tempest JWW.jpg—source?
      • This image has ben removed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found a source and added it to the Commons Image page and added the image back to the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Von Meck.jpg—once again, need information on PD in home country
      • This image is stored on Wikipedia (not Commons), and hence need only be PD in US (hence, the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag). Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears I was somewhat wrong here in using the {{PD-US-1996}} tag. This sketch is a reproduction of an c. 1871 portrait in Russia. The portrait has been reproduced (pencil form) in 1871; hence that constitutes first publishing then. This sketch, a derivative work of the portrait, inherits the original's copyright; hence {{PD-1923}}. Now changed. Jappalang (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but there is one passage that presents minor issues for ensuring the text stands alone from the lead and can be understood by a lay reader. The passage is this:

In 1856, Balakirev and Stasov started gathering young composers through whom to spread ideas and gain a following.[26] Balakirev's first meeting with Cui came that year. Mussorgsky joined them in 1857, Rimsky-Korsakov in 1861, and Borodin in 1862.

Without reference to the lead, the reader has no idea who Stasov is. Then, we are introduced to Cui, about whom we have been told nothing in the body text and who, unlike Mussorgsky, R-S and perhaps Borodin, is unlikely to be a name familiar to a lay reader. Then, when the reader counts heads, s/he comes up with six, not Five - because it has not been explained who Stasov is and in particular that he is not a composer. There needs to be a little more detail here, including changing "Balakirev's first meeting with Cui came that year" to "First to meet with them that year was composer César Cui". The article seems otherwise a creditable piece of scholarship with outstanding prose and good linking. My reading of the above interchanges is that image issues have now been resolved to the satisfaction of one or more experienced image editors. Can someone disabuse me if they think otherwise? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You bring up a very good point. I have changed the passage in question to read, In 1856, Balakirev and critic Vladimir Stasov, who publically espoused a nationalist agenda for Russian arts, started gathering young composers through whom to spread ideas and gain a following.[26] First to meet with them that year was César Cui, an army officer who specialized in the science of fortifications. Modest Mussorgsky, a Preobrazhensky Lifeguard officer, joined them in 1857; Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, a naval officer, in 1861; and Alexander Borodin, a chemist, in 1862. Balakirev, Borodin, Cui, Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov composed in their spare time, and all five of them were young men in 1862, with Rimsky-Korsakov at just 18 the youngest and Borodin the oldest at 28.[27] Jonyungk (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [144].

Frederick Scherger edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article traces the career of an officer who, if perhaps not quite as vital to the history of the Royal Australian Air Force itself as its "father", Air Marshal Sir Richard Williams, probably outshone him in terms of the impact he had on Australia's military and society in general, and was certainly at the top for achievements in rank and office being the RAAF's first appointee to the (de facto) role of Chief of the Defence Force, and its first Air Chief Marshal. Currently GA, as well as A-class on the MilHist and Aviation projects, I believe it's now ready for the bronze star... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have made a quick reading for grammar. On the whole, there are no glaring issues, but there are a few sentences that need to be looked at. I really only made it through the section on the 1930's, and I hope to get the rest done soon.
  • Scherger quickly took to the art of flying open-cockpit biplanes,[3] and gained a reputation as a skilful if occasionally reckless pilot, being berated early in his career by his flight commander for "inverted and very low flying". (Comma splice in the first part of the sentence. Also, the" if occasionally reckless" part needs to be surrounded by commas or hyphenated as a compound adjective.
  • He had married Thelma Harrick on 1 June 1929; they had a daughter, Jill. (This sentence seems unnecessarily concise). How about "He Married Thelma Harrick ..., and they had a daughter named Jill." or something of the like.
  • Faced with the frightened woman and the enraged husband crying that he would "shoot the bitch", Scherger knocked the man down with a poker; the officer was placed under arrest while his wife was given shelter off the base, and subsequently resigned his commission. (The last phrase seems like a comma splice) Mrathel (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks Mrathel, but re. the other two points could I plead ignorance and ask you to explain a bit more about what "comma splice" is and/or the problem with it and/or a suggested alternative? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your confusion, as comma splice is totally the wrong term. These clauses have unnecessary commas:) In the first sentence, there is no need for the comma after biplanes as the subject does not change between the two clauses. If you simplify the sentence, u can say "Scherger took to the art of fly biplanes and gained a reputation...", which is correct while "Scherger took to the art of flying biplanes, and gained a reputation..." is not. The third sentence is more tricky but has the same issue, as there is no subject in the final clause even though it is separated by a comma and a conjunction. Mrathel (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get you. Okay, grammatically I agree re. the first one, I think I probably included the comma as much for the sake of the citation than anything, but I can push that along. Wouldn't have thought we really needed the hyphens (emdashes I suppose) around "if occasionally reckless" but will do it if you insist... ;-) Re. the third, I'm not entirely happy with the sentence anyway so more than happy to take suggestions while I think of yet another way to rephrase it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two commas removed - actually I've decided I don't mind that last sentence after all now (perhaps it was losing the comma!)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • I have a concern with the use of information from the archives. That's pretty much primary sources, and it should be used with extreme care, to only cite the most uncontroversial of facts. Anything more risks getting into WP:OR territory if you attempt to interpret the source.
    • I agree, so apart from some newspaper clippings and letters that are in there, I'm really only employing his file for the bare facts of promotions and postings. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.whereis.com/nsw/north-turramurra/sir-frederick-scherger-dr#session=MTA= a reliable source?
    • Well it's an online street directory so I'd rely on it to get me from place to place - does that count? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do they get their information though? Are they relying on accurate information or is it out of date? What's their reputation for accuracy? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seriously now, per this they're ultimately a subsidiary of Telstra, Australia's major telco, and they claim their maps come from UBD, which is about as reliable as street directories get in this part of the world... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm old fashioned, I use my brain and maps to get from Point A to Point B.... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Ealdgyth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – an excellent article that meets all of the criteria. I do, however, have a few comments, but they are not enough to withhold my support:

  • "the officer was placed under arrest while his wife was given shelter off the base and subsequently resigned his commission" - I think this sentence needs to be tweaked slightly, as the final clause about his resignation somewhat seems to be referring to the wife.
    • Rejigged a bit.
  • Is it known why he taught Richard Casey to fly?
    • Something to do I guess. Seriously, no more than what's there. I didn't find it that fascinating myself, but since I wanted to use the picture I figured I may as well mention it in the text.
  • Is it known why, exactly, Scherger was awarded his CBE and CB?
    • Only the CB has a (basic) recommendation - tks for reminding me, I found it while making the expansion then forgot to use it...
  • The presentation of access dates in the cites are inconsistent.
    • Template issues but worked around them anyway.
  • In regards to the pain-in-the-butt "Honours and awards" box, there is no mention in Scherger's service record of him being awarded the Australian Defence Medal, which was actually established in 2006, and I could not spot any mention that he was awarded a "MALAYA" clasp to the General Service Medal.
    • Heh, re. the first point, somebody got confused with the UK Defence Medal; re. the second, page 3 of the personnel file does mention Malaya.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for review/support, Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed in the writing.

  • "to date"—means nothing in two years' time. Please see the MoS on this: User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Precise_language.2A
    • Fair enough.
  • and the early years of WWII.
    • Hmm, do we really need a second the?
  • "Promoted to". This occurs again in the lead; can you check the rest of the article for the omission?
    • "Promoted <rank>" as opposed to "promoted to <rank>" is pretty common military terminology in my experience, though I welcome feedback from any military editors who disagree.
      • It's for everyone, not just military readers. "Promoted colonel" interferes, from my unfamiliar stance, with promoted him as a colonel (PR?). The readers can do without this grammatical jargon. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's curious that omitting the "to" doesn't seem a major issue for other non-military readers in similar articles, but I see that I've used "to" elsewhere in this one as well, so will go with the latter for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Northwestern Area"? If the military jargon is without "the", it's still uncomfortable for normal humans, but we could bend if it really would look strange to you.
    • As a regional command, forgoing the definite article is standard terminology. I suppose I could make it clearer by saying "North West Area Command", but preferred to avoid the qualifier after "commander" appearing immediately before.
  • Can you pipe to just "Darwin, Northern Territory" to reduce the blue dilution of all of those important links in the vicinity?
    • No prob.
  • -> "served in a variety of senior posts including"
    • Fair enough.
  • "at the age of 79"? You're leaving little grammatical words out ... is this a change in your style?
    • Not really, but editors in other articles of mine have sometimes removed the little words as they see fit and it hasn't bothered me too much either way...
      • It bothers me; feels stubby, not smooth. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melbourne" hardly needed as a link, is it? They know it's in Australia from the context, and the article on Melbourne is kind of huge and irrelevant to the topic we want to drive them down right now ...?
    • See where you're coming from but this seems a bit inconsistent when you've felt the need to add "Australia" to the infobox even though it seems fairly clear that he and Victoria are Australian - WDYT?
      • Yes, but why link it? The article on Melbourne is simply not relevant to the topic; not vaguely. Tony (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I grant you the Melbourne article is not particulary germane to this article, although I'd have thought some non-Australian readers might like to at least know where it is on the map, but if this is part of a campaign to get fewer blue links in articles it may be bigger than this review alone. I say that purely because my level of linking in this article is pretty consistent with many FACs before and, while that doesn't automatically mean it's correct, neither does it mean a cleaver should be taken to the thing before I understand just where you're coming from. For instance, if the link to Melbourne goes, why not the one to Darwin as well, and not simply the one to Northern Territory? If the argument is that Darwin is more 'important' to the Scherger story than Melbourne, well no the town isn't in itself, the fact that it was bombed is - and bombing of Darwin is already linked. By the same standard, I think we can assume that Washington DC and Adelaide can lose their links, while Nadzab and Morotai should retain theirs, but what of Singapore and Kuala Lumper? I ask out of genuine interest, since my own linking policy is to err somewhat on the side of what people mightn't need and simply needn't bother clicking, rather than what they might need and can't click. What I have noted is that I've linked some equipment types next to names of equipment, e.g. SE5 and fighter where the latter isn't necessary if one follows the former, so will take care of those at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the link is fine to stay, it's normal to link proper nouns. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the lead ... it would be a pity if this weren't sifted through and brought up to standard. Tony (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS "He was very pro-Australian, and why not?" (quote) ... the last phrase sure does show the cultural cringe, which is a good reason to leave it in. Tony (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now just altered certain aspects of the lead and responded above before moving on anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any new comments for the past day or two, just an update that everything raised has been actioned or otherwise acknowledged as far as I'm aware... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Images most are fine File:Darwin_42.jpg is watermarked, this watermark should be removed per MOS. The image File:Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967_Retouched.jpg, appears to have no history prior to digitisation, where did it come from to get on a slide? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin_42.jpg isn't one I originally uploaded from the Australian War Memorial but I can probably remove the watermark and upload a new copy in the next day or so. Re. history of Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967_Retouched.jpg, doesn't the original version, Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967.jpg that was already on Commons, provide satisfactory info? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed watermark from Darwin_42.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very comprehensive and appears to fully comply with MOS.--Grahame (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is a comprehensive, well cited and well illustrated article which meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [145].

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the prior FAC issues have been resolved.

The prior FAC concluded with the following unresolved isssues:

I look forward to addressing new concerns as they arise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has undergone these changes since the last FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a lot of changes. --Golbez (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was not much unresolved with the last FAC. Half of the problem with the last FAC was responses awaited on the issues above. The FAC essentially timed out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWeak oppose - after reading through about 2/3rds of the article, I'm concerned that it reads a little too much like an advertisement in places (such as the Spa section), and that the prose isn't of sufficient quality to attain FA status. It could use work from a good copyeditor, as right now it reads as though a series of good and interesting facts were removed from a list, and placed in prose, one after the other. I don't think its that far from FA status, but it needs a good few hours of work. Parrot of Doom 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have accurately noted that I read articles in the public press one at a time and plopped facts in the article one by one. I would welcome your continued copy editing assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Is it necessary to have all those citations in the lead section? They're not required (as long as the relevant text is cited in the article body), and make it a little off-putting to read. Parrot of Doom 12:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - thanks. I'll trust that they've been moved to cover the relevant parts of the article body. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Also, "However, some views distort the alignment of the second setback.a[›]" - the cref doesn't do anything. Parrot of Doom 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"These include studio apartments, one- to four-bedroom suites" - this may be an American English thing but the "one- to four..." doesn't sit right. How about "a mixture of suites containing one to four bedrooms" or similar? Parrot of Doom 12:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"sales@trumpchicago.com. "Trump Organization Project overview" (PDF). Press release. http://www.trumpchicago.com/_files/pdf/brochure.pdf. Retrieved 2007-05-09." - where is it written in this document that the publisher is sales@trumpchicago.com? A link to the page which contains that document may be more helpful. Also, when was that document published? Parrot of Doom 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The original link is the brochure link at http://www.trumpchicago.com/. What exactly would you like me to do to this ref?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well the brochure, as nice as it looks, doesn't give me any details. It doesn't give a date of publication, or who published it. Apart from it being hosted on the trumpchicago.com site, I don't really have any inclination to view it as a reliable source. You'd be better off changing the url in the citation to the above link, and in the title appending something like (click "brochure" link at the foot of the page). It just helps people see where their information is coming from. You may be able to find a rough approximation of the publication date by viewing the .pdf file in Adobe software - perhaps there's a 'document creation' field in the file header.Parrot of Doom 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"The building surpassed the record for the world's highest residence," - I think you need to specify some kind of criteria here, either in a footnote or by rephrasing. I very much doubt that there aren't residences in the world that are higher than this (the Himalayas for example). Nit-picking I know, but it isn't correct. Parrot of Doom 12:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the first use of this term the qualifier "above ground-level" was included. I added it elsewhere at your request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still isn't right. It may contain an apartment, or living space, that is the highest residence above the ground floor of a skyscraper, but the building is certainly not the highest residence above ground level. Parrot of Doom 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"By this time, construction on the exterior of the building had passed the 53rd floor." - by what time? Jan 30th? If so, remind us with prose. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are several instances of critical reaction to the building, its design, and its features. They're mixed throughout the article. It would be better (IMO) to have them moved to their own section, and perhaps we could have some popular commentary on the building, news reports, public opinion, etc. Parrot of Doom 12:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you have gotten involved in editing the content. Would you care to start a "Critical reception", "Critical opinions" or "Critical commentary" section and move content that you think belongs there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't. I'm happy to help out here and there, but such large structural changes should be the responsibility of the nominator(s), if they desire to make them. Parrot of Doom 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have started a critical review section, but I am not sure that commentary on specific features should be moved their. I think it should be reserved for more broad brush reaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"The hotel was designed so that 53 spa guest rooms could be connected to spa via a large circular staircase.[45]" - the article states that it was designed - is this no longer the case? The second half of the sentence doesn't really make any sense to me. Why wouldn't the guest rooms be connected to 'spa' (whatever that is), and I cannot mentally picture the staircase, where it is, or how it connects anything. Parrot of Doom 12:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Again, I am not sure what the problem is. I have tried to edit the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The hotel was designed with a large circular staircase that connects 53 spa guest rooms to spa" - the phrasing suggests a past tense, which might imply that although it was designed with this staircase, it was never actually built. You should, if the staircase exists, say "The hotel has a large circ...". What is a spa guest room, and what, in this context, does "to spa" mean? How does the staircase do what the article claims? Why is the staircase notable? Parrot of Doom 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*" International media later claimed that the planned tower" - bit vague that. How about "Some international news sources"? Parrot of Doom 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I have watched this article expand and evolve from a distance (not a major editor) for quite some time now. It has been reviewed on multiple occasions and consensus has been reached on contentious issues from the past. In my opinion this article is well written, interesting to read (considering the subject matter), comprehensive, well researched, and neutral. It has a well written lead, appropriate and well thought out structure and very good citations. The article's length is good - concise yet informative. The images of the article compliment it amazingly well. Therfore I support its promotion to Featured Article status. DR04 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 10 (See the same..) has a bare url in it...
  • I am unconvinced by the reason that http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2203 is reliable. If it's sourced to something from Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat wouldn't it be better to cite directly?
    • According to the Info section on the World Architecture News website, it appears that anyone can register and submit new projects to the building database. But the site's news articles and editorials (as opposed to the project database) seem to be reliable, as they are written and edited by an editorial team. As such, I think the editorial piece above would qualify as a reliable source from a mainstream news organization. Cheers, Rai•me 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be better to find some sort of third-party reliable source or sources using this site as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, my upcoming college finals mean that I lack the time needed for a full review. However, on a quick glance I did notice a paragraph in Construction that flows poorly, in my view at least. That would be "Residents are zoned to Chicago Public Schools. Residents are zoned to Ogden School and Wells Community Academy High School." A lot of repetition between these two sentences, and I think they would be better served as one larger sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support Tony (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —breaches of WP:OVERLINK. See my unlinkings just in the lead. In particular, the less-specific Illinois (twice), which will be shoved in the readers faces at the start of the link-target "Chicago"; "story", "parking garage" (gee, that's mystifying), and "grand opening". These are common terms, and dilute the high-value terms in the vicinity. In addition, you'll see that I've reduced the huge pipe for the "second-tallest" (list). I've prevented "1" from hanging at the end of the line.[reply]

  • The prose seems much better than I've seen for this type of nomination. I noticed "January 30, 2008. April 28, 2008 marked"—could the rep be eliminated by "... 28 that year ..."?
    • I am pleased that you satisfied with the prose. That gives me hope that this is not a hopeless FAC. I have changed the date wording as you suggested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: TINY. Why? The "site of the tower" is just a colourful blotch, and should be at least 240px to make out what on earth it is. Then the caption would fit more comfortably, a bonus.
  • Second para of "Architecture". One "also", I suppose, is passable, but the second one grates ("also linking"—redundant).
  • Whatever the article is called it's the Gold Coast, not "Gold Coast", and please pipe it this way: the Gold Coast, Australia. Lots more overlinkings here, and of course throughout: it needs a link audit. Tony (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "also" in "also linking" is redundant, and the second "also" in the paragraph.
  • Your edit "undo upright sizes per FAC respondent" reverted all of the unlinkings of common terms in the lead that I did as a favour and diffed above. Why? And why do you insist on that USA template, and the city-state template? What the hell? I'm opposing still. Tony (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I tried to undo this edit in response to your comments, it said this edit cannot be undone. By accident, I started editing from that edit. I am reverting to your changes and then adding my respndent changes. Sorry for the mixup.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have also done some delinking to reduce the blue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what USA template you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you prefer {{USCity}} to {{city-state}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Withdraw oppose, but I'm intrigued: why is it necessary to use a USA or city-sate or any such template? Isn't it simple just to write it out? Then any editor can control it, and the clutter is gone. Tony (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you mean you prefer [[city, state|city]], [[state]] or city, state unlinked to using the templates? I am not sure what you mean by "any editor can control it, and the clutter is gone." It seems to me that {{USCity|city|state}} or {{city-state|city|state}} were created for the purpose of more efficient code. Is there consensus at FAC not to use either of these templates? It seems I have used them in most of my other FAs and I am unaware of consensus changing on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, "swimming pool", "spa", "wine rack", "wine room" (gee, what could they all mean?). "Mezzanine"? (But "mezzanine loan" is fine as a link.) I have unlinked them, since your article already contains many blue links to useful and relevant technical terms. But linking to some international definition of what a "spa" is? That's beyond the pale. The readers speak English, yes? "Pillar"? "Clay"? Tony (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support: This article endured one of the longest FACs on record in 2008 (274kb). I first encountered it last summer when I gave it a very detailed peer review and some copyediting. Unaccountably I missed the article's second FAC last autumn. I have just read it again and am pretty impressed, but as always there are issues that niggle:-

  • "The design of the building incorporates three setbacks..." Even with the link, this reads oddly to those like me who equate "setback" with misfortune. Why not change it to "setback features", so that we underinformed folk are not confused?
  • Mammoth sentence: "Each of the setbacks is designed to reflect the height of a nearby building; the first setback, which is on the east side of the building, aligns with the cornice line of the Wrigley Building to the east, the second setback located on the west side aligns with River Plaza to the north and with the Marina City Towers to the west, and the third setback located on the east side relates to 330 North Wabash building (formerly known as IBM Plaza)." This is over-wordy and repetitive, and should be broken up anyway. Here is my suggestion for beginning this section, losing a dozen or so words but without loss of information: "The design of the building incorporates three setback features designed to provide visual continuity with the surrounding skyline, each reflecting the height of a nearby building. The first setback, on the east side of the building, aligns with the cornice line of the Wrigley Building to the east; the second, on the west side, aligns with River Plaza to the north and with the Marina City Towers to the west. The third setback, on the east side, relates to 330 North Wabash building (formerly known as IBM Plaza)."
  • The second and third paragraphs of the "Architecture" section are not about architecture. They relate to the general character of the building but not to its design or architectural features, as does the first paragraph. Perhaps the section title should be broadened?
  • The Restaurant and Spa sections still have, for me, a slightly adverty feeling. I won't pursue this, however, except to ask for the removal of the phrase "and, for customers who arrive sufficiently early,", which does seem overtly promotional
  • "In October 2005, a fleet of thirty concrete trucks made 600 trips to pour 5,000 cubic yards (3,800 m3) of concrete, within a single 24-hour period, to create the 200-by-66-by-10-foot (61.0 m × 20.1 m × 3.0 m) concrete 'mat'" Can I suggest a rearrangement of this sentence, to give it a bit more impact? "Within a single 24-hour period in October 2005, a fleet of 30 concrete trucks made 600 trips to pour 5,000 cubic yards (3,800 m3) of concrete, and thus create a 200-by-66-by-10-foot (61.0 m × 20.1 m × 3.0 m) concrete 'mat'."
  • Legal issues: the section deals with three quite separate issues, each with its own paragraph. Readers may not realise when one issue has finished and another begun. The second paragraph should begin: "In a separate legal development, Donald Trump was sued..." etc. It would also help to have a rough date (month, year) for when Trump was sued by Radler.
  • "Critical review of the spire by Kamin is that it is not aesthetically complimentary." I don't what this means. I guess the required word is "complementary" (meaning "forming a satisfactory or balanced whole"), with e after the l, not "complimentary" with i after the l. Even so, this is Kamin's critical opinion rather than his "review". Suggested rephrase: "Kamin's critical opinion is that the spire is not aesthetically complementary".
  • "...the economic slowdown that followed the financial crisis." Define the financial crisis; in a few years your readers may not know what you're talking about.
  • "...but also notes that the hotel may be a bit too decadent." Surely the last phrase must be in quotes - I'm sure it's not your POV. And perhaps a word of explanation as to what Fodor meant?

When these matters are resolved I will be happy to convert to unconditional support for a very worthy article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prompt responses to the above concerns. I have switched to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images' The copyrighted File:20080514_Trump_Chicago_Kiosk.JPG appears to fail wp:nfcc, the distance is stated in the article, so the picture conveys no critical information, failing criteria one (replaceable with gfdl text) and thus fails FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keegan, E. (2005). Drama over Trump's Chicago tower. Architectural Record, 193, 37.
  • Vaccaro, P.K. (2002). Modernist vocabulary: modernism is reemerging in what some consider a return to the true spirit of Chicago design. Urban Land, 61, 114–115, 118–121.

The italics are not correct, so I don't know what they want to be. Volume numbers are bolded, issue numbers are not in italics. I suggest using a cite journal template for correct formatting, and decide whether those numbers are volumes or issues. Why do you continue to list publisher and work for The New York Times? Are there two New York Times? Work=The New York Times is sufficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but then you might not have figured out how to do it. Not to imply that you didn't already know--just pointing out that with such an overwhelmingly complex template, many editors get in over their heads and use it without knowing how to make it work properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; so what I do is fix it and then post a diff of my fix here so nominators are still aware. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You should not use cryptic, jargon terminology (perhaps geographically limited in usage too, and certainly not something that will be understood very many of ou readers) such as "low-e glass" without any explanation. It needs clarification. Warning--trying to figure out how to do so by following low-e to the article it redirects to might be an exercise in futility; that article is a shambles. There's a suggested merger on the talk page that might lead to an article which better explains it.
    • The e in low-e should be italic; its a symbol for emissivity. the other article you should check out, and variable symbols are italicized. But you shouldn't be using that symbol in an article like this, with only one brief mention of this term. Spell it out as "low-emissivity" instead. At least then most readers will know everything they need to know about it; that its some special quality of the glass, and that they probably won't understand it any better if they look it up, so they can just continue reading. Better than seeing a strange something that isn't really a word and wondering what the hell that means or just assuming it is a typo or vandalism. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [146].

Edward Drinker Cope edit

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Imagine, if you will, a time when white men with lots of money and facial hair traveled the country and ruined their health, all for the love of some old rocks? Such was the life of Edward Drinker Cope, a brilliant and occasionally arrogant man of science who discovered literally thousands of new species. His personal feud with one Othniel Charles Marsh resulted in the greatest expansion of American paleontology ever: the entire United States wasn't big enough for the two of them. Read on, chaps. The article recently went through a pretty thorough peer review, and I believe it meets criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dab links or dead external links, and ref dates look consistent. Cool.
  • Alt text looks good. Given the length of some of them, I think the text of the handwriting with the whale could be added to its alt (see WP:ALT#Text).

--an odd name 20:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support I've made a handful of changes to the prose to make it a bit more readable; they should probably be checked to ensure I haven't changed any meanings or misunderstood anything. All in all it's an interesting article, but it needs some work on the prose, the structure, and in some places perhaps a little more detail. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cope's financial fortunes soured after failed mining ventures in the 1880s, and was forced to sell off much of his fossil collection": awkward phrasing, it sounds like Cope sold his fossils because he was doing well financially.
  • The sentence still reads strangely, I think the problem is with the word "soared". How about something like "In the 1880s Cope invested in mining to support his work. Though initially profitable, the mines stopped producing in 1886 and Cope was forced to sell off much of his fossil collection"? It's a bit clunkier, but I think clearer. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could have sworn that said "soared" last time I looked. Long day. Oh well it's not the first time I've made a fool of myself and won't be the last :-) Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the second occurrence of "Society of Friends" it is mentioned in parenthesis that it is associated with the Quakers; this should be done on the first occurrence.
  • It might be worth using Template:Inflation for the monetary figures to give the reader a rough idea of how much it would be today.
  • "but in letters to his father later on in the war": what war? This comes out of nowhere.
  • "Edward considered working in the South to assist freed African-Americans" is this the American south or south Europe? It's not clear especially given that the title of the section is European travels
  • When letters are burned, the implication is that they no longer exist so "Many of Edward's journals and letters from the time period do not exist, for he burned them upon his return from his European" could be simplified to "Edward burned many of his journals and letters from the time period upon his return from his European". Also what does "the time period" refer to? Just his travels through Europe? Would it make more sense to put this sentence at the end of the section as a way of rounding it off rather than at the start of the second paragraph? As it is, the narrative jumps around a bit. The same is true for much of the section as after Cole burns his journals at the end of his travels we are told of the possible reasons he left.
  • "Though Marsh had two university degrees in comparison to Edward's lack of formal schooling past sixteen, Edward at the age of twenty-three had published 37 scientific papers in comparison to Marsh's two published works" a bit long-winded and there's some repetition.
  • When it is mentioned that Marsh and Cope initially seemed to be friends, it might be worth reminding the reader that they would later become rivals.
  • I think the reader is left wondering for too long how the "feud" originated, especially since it is mentioned that Marsh tried to damage Cope's reputation before their disagreement is mentioned or even explained. The implication of mentioning Cope's prolific output (especially when comparing it to that of Marsh) is that it was professional jealousy, and I was surprised to learn that it was because Marsh rubbished Cope.
  • It is a tricky situation to deal with, perhaps a line could be added explaining that the rivalry stemmed from Marsh showing Cope up one time, but I'll defer to your judgement.
  • When Marsh is mentioned I think it would be helpful to explain why his friendship with Cope is important. What was he studying at university, would he later become a prominent palaeontologist?
  • It feels like in places there are details missing, for example why did Cole stop his cave visits? Was it because he no longer had time or did something in particular put Cope off?</ref> Oh well, if it’s not explained nothing more can be said about it. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain what he was looking for when "In the autumn of 1871 Cope headed farther west to the fossil fields of Kansas", or was it simply any fossils he could find?
  • "he maintained this pattern from 1871-1879": including the break downs from exhaustion? This could do with a little more explanation (even just something along the lines of "he ventured into the desert every summer and wrote up his findings in the winter from 1871 to 1879").
  • A note about why Thomas Henry Huxley is significant would be useful; it could be as little as saying "…little impact on anyone save palaeontologist Thomas Henry Huxley" so readers know he was relevant.
  • "Cope's relations with Marsh turned into a competition for bones between the two, known today as the Bone Wars": repetition of "bone", would "fossil" suffice on the first occurrence? Of course, fossils doesn't refer exclusively to bones, so I don't object too much to this repetition.
  • "While Lakes sent Marsh some 1,500 pounds of bone, he also sent Cope some of his found specimens": "some of his found specimens" is awkward.
  • "one of the most recognizable dinosaur recreations of the time period": awkward phrasing again, is "period" necessary?
  • The last sentence of the Bone Wars section seems tagged on as an afterthought, can it be linked back to Marsh's position as chief palaeontologist?
  • "[Marsh's] position at Yale meant he had guaranteed access…": what position at Yale? This is the first time it is mentioned.
  • Unless it was proven, I'd recommend adding "alleged" before misallocation to the following: "No congressional hearing was created to investigate the misallocation of funds".
  • Was Marsh removed from his position with the Survey as a result of Cope's actions or for some other reason?
  • "[Cope's] wife cared for him when she herself was not ill": did she return to be with Cope or did he go to here? Was she often ill? Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed most of your points above, adding bits to clarify and whatnot. I've rearranged the European travels section to two paragraphs, hopefully the flow is more logical and clear now. I've also tried to elaborate on some of the questions you had; as to why he never went cave-trekking again, Osborn only mentions it and doesn't give any clues; I suspect it's simply because Cope's attentions wavered, but there's no elaboration either way. As to the mentions of Marsh... they really can't be crammed in elsewhere, but I think it's still important to have them outside the Bone Wars section (because the Bone Wars really focuses on 1877-1892, although the wider feud lasted until the death of Cope.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, it looks like you got everything. The only outstanding issue is the first point, but it's pretty minor so I'm switching to support. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the Belladonna dab Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, meets all the criteria, I have no issues that haven't already been resolved. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll do a check on 1b and 1c. Am wondering why the following sources are not mentioned in the article. Sasata (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jane P. Davidson. "Edward Drinker Cope, Professor Paleozoic and "Buffalo Land"". Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1903-), Vol. 106, No. 3/4 (Autumn, 2003), pp. 177-191
  • Jane P. Davidson. "Bonehead Mistakes: The Background in Scientific Literature and Illustrations for Edward Drinker Cope's First Restoration of Elasmosaurus platyurus." Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. 152, (Oct. 14, 2002), pp. 215-240
  • Theodore Gill. "Edward Drinker Cope, Naturalist-A Chapter in the History of Science".The American Naturalist, Vol. 31, No. 370 (Oct., 1897), pp. 831-863
  • Peter J. Bowler. "Edward Drinker Cope and the Changing Structure of Evolutionary Theory" Isis, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Jun., 1977), pp. 249-265
  • Walter H. Wheeler. "The Uintatheres and the Cope-Marsh War". Science, New Series, Vol. 131, No. 3408 (Apr. 22, 1960), pp. 1171-1176
  • Benjamin S. Creisler. "Why Monoclonius Cope Was Not Named for Its Horn: The Etymologies of Cope's Dinosaurs." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep. 3, 1992), pp. 313-317
  • Alfred S. Romer. "Cope versus Marsh Cope versus Marsh". Systematic Zoology, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Dec., 1964), pp. 201-207
  • Edw. Anthony Spitzka. "A Study of the Brains of Six Eminent Scientists and Scholars Belonging to the American Anthropometric Society, together with a Description of the Skull of Professor E. D. Cope". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1907), pp. 175-308
  • "[Obituary: Edward Drinker Cope] [Obituary: Edward Drinker Cope]". The American Naturalist, Vol. 31, No. 365 (May, 1897), pp. 412-413
  • "Edward Drinker Cope". The American Naturalist, Vol. 31, No. 365 (May, 1897), pp. 414-419
  • Henry W. Fowler. "Special Anniversary Features: Cope in Retrospect". Copeia, Vol. 1963, No. 1 (Mar. 30, 1963), pp. 195-198
  • Philip P. Calvert. "A Bust of the Late Professor E. D. Cope". Science, New Series, Vol. 51, No. 1315 (Mar. 12, 1920), pp. 264-265
  • Henry F. Osborn. "Edward D. Cope". Science, New Series, Vol. 5, No. 123 (May 7, 1897), pp. 705-717
  • Theo. Gill. "Edward Drinker Cope, Naturalist--A Chapter in the History of Science". Science, New Series, Vol. 6, No. 137 (Aug. 13, 1897), pp. 225-243
  • I have not looked at all the sources you describe (The T.Gill cites are perhaps useful, I will have to check) but many are already incorporated by other sources--Davidson and Osborn's papers are part of their respective larger works, Spitzka is mentioned in Jaffe, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured most of them would be incorporated in other works like you said, but the Davidson papers are published after the 1997 book you used in the article... perhaps she uncovered some other material, or has revised her interpretations of events? Sasata (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, I'll double check. I've added in a bit from Bowler, Romer and Fowler; I will take a look at Davidson and the others tomorrow or Monday (I've got a final school project that's diverting my time.) I will ping you when I've scraped the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a tad from Gill (it also had a pic I've added in as well). The Davidson items are really tangental to Cope himself (the Buffalo Land one is about how some of Cope's research was used in a book and I don't think really fits the article.) Osborn's obit isn't really much different from his book in terms of any additional nuggets. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking out those sources, I'm content with regards to 1b and 1c now. Sometime later this week I'll actually read the article and put up a proper review. Sasata (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Everything looks good to me (very good, actually; this is probably the best FAC I've ever reviewed as far as image description pages go). I'll note that File:Edward Drinker Cope’s study in 1897.jpg is listed as being in the public domain only by virtue of the Library of Congress asserting "No known restrictions on publication", and I've seen editors claim that that's not sufficient information. I disagree (especially given that the creator died in 1917), but am mentioning it here in case anybody else wants to take issue with it. Steve Smith (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Jappa brought that up. I'm thinking to be safe, I'm ultimately going to remove it, but I'm just waiting to hear from the original uploader if he/she knows any additional info about publication. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: David, this looks very good. However, I made some adjustments and have some additional questions.
1. Where is the first Bakker reference? It appears to be missing. I added Bakker et al. (1990), but your text refers to a second Bakker source. Is it the Bakker and Dodson interview?
2. What is the "Elanliosaur" mentioned in the text? I've commented this out because I've never heard of this and it gets no Google hits outside of this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first Bakker ref is with Dodson. As for Elanliosaur, it's definitely what was written up in Osborn. Why it doesn't appear anywhere else is beyond me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a text error, as no other source anywhere (that I can see) supports this. I get nothing on the Paleobiology Database, nothing in my books, and nothing in Google. Also, the name itself is malformed and almost certainly should not be italicized ("-saur" endings are common names, not scientific names). I highly recommend removing this altogether. Even though the one source verifies it, nothing else does. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a reason you ditched Elasmosaurus, too? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my mistake, for some reason I thought you had added that in as a possible alt. to the Elanliosaur bit, I've tweaked it now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 05:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. I have another observation, and you may want to kill me, but here goes. As we well know, and as you wrote above, Cope "discovered literally thousands of new species". However, the text itself only mentions five taxa: Amphibamus grandiceps, Monoclonius, Elasmosaurus platyurus, Laelaps, and Camarasaurus. Five out of thousands seems very paltry. What links here indicates that between 500 and 1,000 articles link to Cope, and many of these are species he worked on, discovered, or named. There's no mention in the article of the dinosaur genus Amphicoelias, possibly the largest dinosaur which ever lived, both discovered and named by Cope. There's no mention of Allosaurus amplexus, Coelophysis, or non-dinosaurian taxa like Edaphosaurus, Champsosaurus, Lystrosaurus, and Peltosaurus. While many of Cope's discoveries have since usually been "sunk in" to other names, these last four have not. Nor has Camarasaurus, possibly Cope's greatest contribution to the Dinosauria. But the text only discusses Camarasaurus in one sentence. Coelophysis gets no mention at all, despite being the type taxon of a well-known family of theropods. WP's article on the Bone Wars (a fine article you wrote!) is much clearer about Cope's discoveries. In this article, though, the reader is left to wonder what Cope discovered, because it's clear from the text that he was very prolific, but almost nothing he described gets any mention. I would like to see more detail on his discoveries, and I'd be glad to assist (starting tomorrow night), if you're amenable. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Mi artículo es su artículo, and all that :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to add a paragraph enumerating Cope's major taxa discoveries (with a sentence like "Cope described X in 18xx,[ref] Y in 18xy,[ref] and Z in 18xz.[ref]"), but then I realized you're using a different style of reference formatting than what I'm used to. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←Just add it in, and I'll worry about prettying it up and standardizing the citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added a bit on Cope's publication of Amphicoelias, Lystrosaurus, Champsosaurus, Edaphosaurus and Coelophysis in two areas which appeared able to support the added text. I left out others, though, that just didn't fit where the text was going. The little I added, though, could help illustrate his discoveries to readers. Feel free to rework as needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formatted your additions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a few additional minor adjustments, I'm ready to Support this article's FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great job! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: I was involved in peer reviewing this article and made many comments, much of which Dave has resolved. What is left would not significantly affect my decision to support this document, as the prose is good, the article comprehensive on Cope's life, and the sources are reliable. I originally pointed out in the review and agree with Nev1 that Marsh's feud with Cope could be better introduced than the sudden "Marsh's attempts to sully Cope's reputation ..."; however, it is not a sticking point. As mentioned, I am a bit more concerned over File:Edward Drinker Cope’s study in 1897.jpg (and this is where my conditional support comes in), but not opposing since Elcobbola and Steve Smith are not that concerned over it (it seems more likely it was unpublished until recently). So unless someone else points out that the photo has been published during 1923-1989 and is still copyrighted, I will support this article. On another note, would this alternate angle shot (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b37400) be a better cluttered study photo? Jappalang (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current image is better. While I like the greater prominence of the specimens and skulls on the cabinet, I think the other one is better in terms of overall composition (I'm not sure how easy it would be to reduce the white areas in the alternative image, or whether those areas are too blown out to be properly corrected in post. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, like I said, unless someone brings up evidence or convincing argument on why the study image is not public domain, my support stands. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—parts are beautifully written, but there are many glitches, particularly after the lead. I started at "Support", then drew back to "Concerned".

  • "rapidly published"—ok, but it has an odd feel. Was it the negotiations or the printing presses that were rapid? Was it just the rapid publications that were debated? (That is one implication of the wording.)
  • Chain-like sentence structure: "His theories on the origin of mammalian molars and "Cope's Law", on the gradual enlargement of mammalian species, are among his theoretical contributions." The second "on" folds back into just Cope's law, or all of the preceding?
  • "His notebook, including this page, survives and contains copious notes and drawings of his travels." Perhaps "His notebook survives, including this page, and contains copious notes and drawings of his travels."
  • His mother died at the age of three?
  • "maternal" rather than "motherly" is better, I suspect. "have had".
  • "Alfred was also ..."—I know I'm an incorrigible "also" deletionist, but ... does it add anything here?
  • Comma after "Fairfield" could go (personal view).
  • acres convert to hectares, please. Thousands of square metres are very hard to visualise.
  • "Exotic" gardens were "a natural landscape"? "Natural" occurs again a few seconds later; this is yet more evidence that we need a script/bot to flag close repetitions of non-grammatical words. I've asked at the bot page and have been ignored ... :-(
  • The school was "the site" of much of the family's education? Bit odd. "... provided much of ..."?
  • "costing Alfred $500 tuition each year,"—add "in".
  • Old-fashioned to capitalise the initials of school subjects. I see "comparative anatomy" in full lower case below.
  • Logic problem: "Edward's letters home requesting a larger allowance show he was able to manipulate his father"—only if his dad acquiesced.
  • Remove "of time".
  • "Despite complaints about his schooling, Cope returned to Westtown in 1855, accompanied by two of his sisters." Who was complaining? The parents (typical nowadays) or the boy? Please go through every sentence defensively: try to extract double meanings or the wrong meaning, and fix where you can. That is how I'm reading/analysing.
  • "Biology began to interest him more"—more than his other subjects, or more than in the previous year? (See?)
  • The bot that doesn't exist yet picked up "prestigious school" twice in 15 seconds' of reading.
  • "Cope frequently obtained bad marks for quarrelsome and bad conduct." So if he'd tried harder at bad conduct they'd have given him an A for that subject? (Sorry, but I can't switch off my ambiguity antennae.) Also, "Cope" refers to the boy, but "Alfred" the father was also a Cope. I'd tend to use the boy's first name when in the vicinity of his dad.
  • "wholesome" needs to be in quotes to show that it's not WP's judgement. Perhaps I think farming isn't wholesome, no matter how profitable.
  • "Up till 1863"—"Until ...".
  • "Though Alfred resisted his son's acceptance of a science career, he paid for his son's private studies."—Would "pursuit" be better?
  • "scientific exploits"—bit pejorative, that second word?
  • "He also had a job during this period recataloging"—During this period, he took a job recataloging ...".
  • "over the next years he published almost solely on reptile and amphibians"—how many years?

Needs work from both the nominator and an independent party. I got down to the end of "Early life". Tony (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed most of the above listed, and will try and go through the rest hunting for redundancies and such when possible. I'll see about getting an uninvolved person to look over it too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David, what's the latest status on this? Have you gotten the uninvolved person to look through and has Tony been asked to revisit? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The people I've talked to have been busy, and weren't able to give me a definite time they'd be able to assist. I've gone through the article again myself and have asked Tony to take a look whenever he has the time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

  • "Due to his background in taxonomy and paleontology, Cope focused on evolution in changing structural terms, rather than Darwin's emphasis on geography and variation within populations." Keep the grammar parallel? "Due to his background in taxonomy and paleontology, Cope focused on evolution in terms of changing structure, rather than emphasising geography and variation within populations as Darwin had." Check please for content accuracy ... it looks better grammatically. Something had to be done.
  • Is this grammatical? "His original view, described in the paper "On the Origin of Genera" (1868), held that while Darwin's natural selection may affect the preservation of superficial characteristics in organisms, but that natural selection alone could not explain the formation of genera."
  • Nicer without the comma? ... through what Cope termed, "a continual crowding ...
  • Strictly "In fewer than 40 years as a scientist".
  • Minor issues: "Cope is today known as a herpetologist and paleontologist, but his contributions extended to ichthyology; he catalogued 300 species of fishes over three decades". Word order, sh .. sh.: "Although Cope is now known as ..., his ..., in which he catalogued 300 fish species over three decades". Was it exactly 300?
  • Some of the pics were tiny. Why?

I didn't oppose, above. I still don't, but the prose needs to be tightened up in such FACs. It's been here far too long, David. Tony (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above. As for image sizes, I've been leaving things at default in the hope that they'll be fine once the image thumb defaults get changed (whenever that will be.) As for how long this FAC has been open... I sure haven't asked for a stay of execution. It's up to them dastardly delegates to close, and lowly mortals such as me know not the hour and all that :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:20, 10 January 2010 [147].

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway edit

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article because I believe it covers its subject fully and meets the standard required to be included amongst the set of featured. It is a companion to the featured articles City and South London Railway, Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway and Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway. DavidCane (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 1b/c: Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did not reply here until now as I felt that the comments below adequately covered my concerns in such a self-evident manner that to note it would be superfluous. All my concerns have been adequately addressed. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming. I didn't want to assume that everything was OK, if there was something I had missed. --DavidCane (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the status of Capital Transport as a vanity publisher, due to their website, their lack of an editorial or submissions policy, and Rose being acknowledged in World Cat as the publisher for "Rose, Douglas (1999). The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History. Douglas Rose/Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-219-4." The impact of sourcing an article so significantly from sources published by a vanity publisher would be to undermine its status in terms of 1b/c.
Although most of the books in the references list are published by Capital Transport, the company is not a vanity publisher, but a small specialist publisher on transport subjects - particularly those in London. A number of the books used for the article are published in association with the London Transport Museum (Horne's The Bakerloo Line - An Illustrated History, Day and Reed's The Story of London's Underground and Connor's London's Disused Underground Stations) and they are all sold by the museum's shop and in larger bookshops with specialist transport sections (for example, Waterstone's in Piccadilly). I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the museum and Waterstone's would only be selling these titles if they were considered to be good quality works.--DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about a source reliance stemming from Capital Transport publications separate to the status of the publisher. What other monographs of the tube system exist? Journal Articles from history of technology and science / engineering?
I don't think the fact that they have the same publisher has any particular relevance to the coverage of the subject matter within the books themselves. There have been many books published on the London Underground - Wolmar lists nearly fifty which he used as source materials for his book which covers the whole system, including a couple of the others used directly here. The books used are all recent editions and are effectively a distillation of the primary and secondary sources available to the authors. With regards to technological/engineering issues, I have tried to avoid including much on these matters except in the construction section and have provided wiki-links to relevant articles on tunnelling shields, caissons, etc. which cover these subjects in more detail. --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that the extensive use of the London Gazette indicates that a High Quality Reliable Source may not have been used to establish the narrative / weighting of the article; and subsequently sections of the Gazette have been cherry picked to establish a historical narrative that may be substantially Original Research, ie "With the extension to Paddington still under construction, the LER published a bill in November 1911 for the continuation to Queen's Park.[80] => [80] ^ London Gazette: no. 28552, pp. 8615–8620, 21 November 1911. Retrieved on 2009-11-07." Some of these uses are clear, but in some the passing of an act is being used to imply that substantive things happened in the real world.
In most cases the London Gazette references are used to provide a direct primary source link to the actual bill that Badsey Ellis has referred to in his book as he has generally referred to the actual primary documents themselves and describes the planned route and station locations in his narrative. In the specific example above, ref [80] is not provided to support the introductory "With the extension to Paddington still under construction," bit, just the date of the bill's introduction. The fact that the extension to Paddington was under construction at the time is covered by ref [76] and ref [55] in the last paragraph of the previous section which states that construction began in August 1911 and was completed with the opening of the station in December 1913. --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could satisfy these concerns are groundless, it would be wonderful. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name

  • No dab links or dead external links. Double-check that the five galegroup Times links work (they require registration so I can't).
    • Access to the Times links on infotrac is often available via membership of local public libraries in the UK.--DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text: The large images all have some, but the bottom navbox and the images that make up the diagram in section "Opening" don't have it. The diagram's images need alts because they aren't purely decorative and give more info on the represented stops. is vastly improved and looks good. (updated on 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
    • Not sure this is going to be possible without a complete rewrite of the BSicon templates which is unlikely to happen easily or soon. The diagram is a visual representation of what's in the text anyway and I am not sure that it would be very useful to an unsighted reader as I expect that a screen reader will read left to right across a row rather than up down. I will see if there is a way to make a screen reader skip this diagram. --DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically possible, but in reality impractical. The map is created by WP:ROUTE which uses many icon images to comprise the whole map. Forcing alt description text into the diagram means that you need to input each desciption for each icon, in the case of Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, you'll have to repeat the same text >50 times. Ultimately the ineffectiveness to display a proper alt text from WP:ROUTE diagram shouldn't challenge the qualificaition of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've dug into the navbox to add alt text for the image there --DavidCane (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent style for ref dates. Compare e.g. refs 81 and 88. Consider using one format for all dates in citations.
    • I think 88 and 89 were different because they were copied over from one of the companion articles. Changed all retrieved dates to full UK style date.--DavidCane (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. (1) Text on maps unreadable. (2) Images mostly tiny. I've boosted the size of some of the pics, so you may wish to audit the placement. (3) The prose could do with an independent copy-edit—not a long job, though.

  • The maps: I think you created them, so can you massively increase the size of the text? The year range should have an unspaced en dash in the first one (see MOSDASH). I've boosted the px size of the Baker Street excerpt below, but the text is still too small, and most of the image is just white space. Same for the others. I'm not sure a real photo (Oxford Circus station? The temporary pier?) wouldn't be better in the lead, with the current lead map further down, centred, and larger (i.e., not squeezing text at all—even now, it squeezes). The 1906 Gate pic is tiny AND squeezes text (a breach of MoS).
    • I will see what I can do about the sizes of the maps and the text they contain. I want to keep the text size in the route progression maps consistent from one to another so that the scale can be maintained.
    • I was trying not to force the image sizes, but will be happy to make the gate stock one bigger. If it is moved after the text in the section with a {{clearleft}} afterwards, I think it will stop the pinching.
    • I would like to keep the main map at the top because it gives more of a sense of the article than the pier and the Oxford tube station pictures that only relate to a small aspect of the story. --DavidCane (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example of copy-editing needed, in the lead: "fraud" could be "fraudulent behaviour" ... unsure. "It" refers to Whitaker or LGFC or BS? "connected with" would avoid "to" x 3. Remove "covering"? "In 1933, it and the rest ..."—this is awkward.
    • I think fraud is more appropriate; "fraudulent behaviour" seems a bit equivocal
    • "It" is the BS&WR.
    • Think I've got all the rest.
    • Iridescent provided some comments before it came to FAC. Thanks. --DavidCane (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 
Geographic route map of the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway

Well, my eyesight is pretty good, and I have great difficulty reading the text for the station names. There's a lot of white space, so why can't the font-size be bigger? "1906–33" or "1906–1933", with unspaced en dash, not spaced hyphen. Hands up anyone here who can make out a single word in the key. What is the point? I suspect the point is that you're expected to click to get full res (it's rather too full, actually); this is hard for people with slow connections, and inconvenient for everyone. The alt text could be a little more descriptive. The caption might just say "Map of the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway route and its extension over nearly three decades". But being able to read the key is critical to the colour and line coding on the map; the key should be a rectangle, tallish, with font-size twice the current. If it can't fit along the left side, put it in the sea of white on the right? Tony (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text in all maps has now been increased by 63%. How does that look? --DavidCane (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Cough) David, you've reverted back to the West Coast Main Line and not the DC Line... – iridescent 02:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just testing! I've got too many versions on my hard drive and used the wrong one. Now fixed.--DavidCane (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Support assuming the issue regarding the maps is sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. As David says above,my concerns regarding this were all resolved here. – iridescent 2 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I read this ages ago, then forgot about it, Reread today, happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to Support: I think the maps are now fine, and so is the prose. I continue to be impressed by the extent of industry and research which is behind these railway articles, and look forward to giving this latest one my full support. The issue holding me back at the moment is that of the PD status of three of the images. I am not an expert image reviewer, my comments being based on my understanding of advice I have received in the past. I hope an expert will come soon and clear the matter up:-
    • Whittaker Wright: when was this image first published? My understanding is that the 70-year rule applies to unpublished works, and if the image was not published before 1923 then it may not be PD in the USA.
      • The Whitaker Wright image is by Harry Furniss who died in 1925. Wright killed himself in 1904 following the famous trial. The Badsey-Ellis book, from which the image was scanned, ascribes the source to the National Portrait Gallery. The NPG page for the image (which I couldn't find when I made the scan) indicates that it is from a set titled "Prominent men: drawings by Harry Furniss, circa 1880-1910". It therefore seems likely that it was published before Wright's death and no later than 1910. --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Prominent men: drawings by Harry Furniss, circa 1880-1910" is not a publication but a database created by the NPG for Furniss's sketches. This image is likely a draft of Furniss's caricatures. I would advise not using it because of the 20-year publication rights (of previously unpublished works) in the UK that comes into effect even if the image would be PD due to 70-year-pma. Use the finished product in Harry Furniss at Home (Google or Internet Archive), which is undeniably {{PD-1923}} (for US) and commons:Template:PD-UK-known (for UK). Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Excellent, Thanks for finding that. I will upload the original 3 caricature image from the Harry Furniss at Home book and a crop of just whitaker to replace the existing image.--DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jetty picture: Similar problem - when was it first published? Additionally, you are claiming that the author has been dead for 70+ years, but we can't assume this since we don't know who he/she was. A photographer aged 25 in 1896 would only have been 69 in 1940.
      • I'm pretty sure that I uploaded the image with the same copyright tag as the gate stock image below, e.g. {{tl:PD-UK}}, but as it has been moved to commons, I cannot check this. Mike Horne's book gives no source information, so apart from the approximate date it is impossible to identify any other information on its origin or if it was published at the time. I'm quite happy to remove it if that is thought to be the solution.--DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brian is correct here. You need to know who is the author and be verifiably certain he is dead beyond 70 years to use any 70-year-pma tag. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gates Stock: I am not sure that PD in the USA is covered by the existing licence information.
      • Mike Horne's book from which this was scanned has no source information for the image. The uploaded version does not appear in the London Transport Museum photographic archive, though this untouched version appears to be the original from which it was created. It is ascribed to an unknown photographer and dated 1906. The retouching of the rivets and the painting out of the background is indicative that it was prepared for publication, probably for the Bakerloo line's opening in 1906. If it was published in 1906, it would be in the public domain now --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image used in this article is not a retouched version of the London Transport Museum photographic archive link provided—observe the differences in positioning of the car's windows in the background, which implies the images were taken at different distances. It would be needed to find out from whom or where did Mike Horne get his photos from, and whether they fall into the public domain or was he given permission/license to publish them. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. Windows are slightly different as if the photographer took two shots from slightly different positions. I will remove from article. --DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I await the verdict of one better informed than me. User:Awadewit might be persuaded to take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a request that Awadewit have a look at these, but she has declined as she is not reviewing images at the moment. Hopefully, my answers above can help someone else make a decision on this matter.--DavidCane (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jappalang is extremely knowledgeable on images, and usually very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang has already commented above.--DavidCane (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed his comments which, together with your responses, remove my concerns about images. I have moved to full support - sorry it's taken so long but I've been busy, been away blah blah blah... Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on your Images (just to annoy you!!) I was ready through the article and it's all very good, but going through the images it can get a bit confusing as to what the new stations that were rejected/accepted were—It involves a lot of scrolling back and forth between previous sections and the current section. Would it be possible (if you don't have a problem with it) for the images to contain some easy to recognise distinction? maybe colour the station's red for rejected and green for accepted from the previous image in the article. So the second image would have Marylebone in green (or whatever) and the third image would have Hampstead Road and Euston and St George's Circus through Old Kent Road as red (or whatever). Or maybe you could have the current route slightly faded or some other way of distinction. Just my AUD$0.02 and if you think I'm a nutter then so be it! Sanguis Sanies (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the images as supplementary to the text, which carries the detail of how the routes developed, and would prefer to keep them as simple as possible. Adding different colours or tones to the images would require an explanatory key that would, of necessity require the image dimensions boxes to be enlarged, potentially crowding the space on the page. --DavidCane (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Support Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 2 January 2010 [148].

Lock Haven, Pennsylvania edit

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC), Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's a good read that meets the criteria. User:Ruhrfisch, who did much of the photography and all of the map-making for the article, has kindly agreed to co-nominate. Lock Haven is a small university town that grew up along the West Branch Canal of the Pennsylvania Canal system in the early 19th century. Until William Penn's original woods were mostly felled, the town thrived on timber. In the 1930s, the town became home to Piper Aircraft and its famous Cub. In the 1970s, flooding from the remnants of Hurricane Agnes put a big damper on the airplane factory and much else in town. Beneath part of the city lie artifacts from other cultures dating back more than 8,000 years.

The article has been peer reviewed by User:Brianboulton, User:Niagara, User:Ruhrfisch, User:Doncram, and, on the article's talk page, User:Dincher. In addition, User:Ealdgyth ran a preliminary review of the sources. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've had my eye on this article for some time and am very pleased with the progress. All of my issues were addressed and the article has only improved during the PR process. Very nicely done. Dincher (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support as well as your peer review and other help with this article over the past two years. Finetooth (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A carefully prepared article that was very thoroughly peer reviewed by several editors; I was one of them, and every one of my points was addressed fully. The article is pleasant to read, informative, and beautifully presented – the images are a treat. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support. Your review was especially thorough and helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to both reviewers as well - you have helped greatly in improving this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical stuff

  • No dabs or dead external links, and alt text looks good (see Talk:Lock Haven, Pennsylvania#Lock Haven review). Some alts are fairly long, but they all look good and appropriate (map alts describe the essence instead of the map, for example).
  • Dates are Month Day, Year throughout—good.
  • For images used on multiple pages with non-free rationales, try {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}} to shorten the File pages. I've changed one of the images to use these; you do it for any others.
  • Nice carillon.

--an odd name 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking these and for the tip on non-free image templates (only one non-free image is used in this article). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too. I did not know about the templates either. Finetooth (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some prose issues. For instance (but not limited to):

** "The earliest settlers in Pennsylvania arrived from Asia between 12000 BCE and 8000 BCE, the Paleo-Indian Period, when the glaciers of the Pleistocene Ice Age were receding." - Paleo-Indian Period shouldn't be surrounded by commas.

To make this more direct, I moved "Paleo-Indian Period" to the next sentence and wikilinked it to say: "Fluted point spearheads from this era, known as the Paleo-Indian Period, have been found in most parts of the state. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fluted point spearheads are not known as the Paleo-Indian Period. How about "Fluted point spearheads from the Paleo-Indian Period..."? Parrot of Doom 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer either of my two constructions, both of which seem clear to me. The time span, the era, and the period all refer to the same thing. If we remove "era" from the fluted-point sentence, this connection will be lost, and it might appear that Paleo-Indian Period and the 4,000-year span were not the same. Finetooth (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fine with me, however, consider using History of Mesoamerica (Paleo-Indian) as a link instead. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but Mesoamerica is a long way south of what became Pennsylvania, that is not the correct link. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I'm rather ignorant of US geography, lol :) Parrot of Doom 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "First contact with Europeans occurred in Pennsylvania between 1500 and 1600 CE." - European first contact with whom?
I changed this sentence to begin, "The native peoples' first contact... ". Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but who are the native people? Is there an article, or do they have a name? Parrot of Doom 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is for the whole state. The Susquehannocks were the tribe in the Lock Haven area at the time of first contact - see below polease. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to add a sentence at the end of this paragraph that said something like "The Susquehannocks were the earliest recorded inhabitants of the Susquehanna River valley and Lock Haven area; disease and warfare wiped them out as a tribe by 1675." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer a noun or link just to identify those 'native peoples'. They must have been called something. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom, I don't think anyone can say for sure when the absolute first contact occurred. Miller and Pencak in Pennsylvania: a History of the Commonwealth here (p. 34) say, "When native Pennsylvanians first laid eyes on Europeans is unclear." The British explorer John Smith met a party of Susquehannocks from Pennsylvania in 1608, but that was not the first contact, which might have occurred between any two people (one Indian and one European) who encountered one another in this wild frontier place. The first encounter could easily have been informal, accidental, and unrecorded. Finetooth (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom, there were at least four tribes in what is now Pennsylvania at the rough time of first contact: the Lenape along the Delaware River in the east (maybe 1/6 of the state), the Susquehannocks in the Susquehanna River valley (maybe 1/2 the state), the Eries along Lake Erie in the northwest, and tribe(s) we do not even know the names of along the Allegheny River/Monongahela River/Ohio River basins in the west (about 1/3 of the state). Plus the Iroquois would cross the state going from New York in the north to fight in the Carolinas to the south, the Susquehannocks were in wars with tribes to the south and north, etc. In short, not only do we not know when the first encounter was or who it was with, we also don't even know the names of all the tribes in the state then (even with the Susquehannocks we do not know what they called themselves, only what others called them). I hope this helps clarify the difficulty in answering your request. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case a short footnote to explain this would be welcomed. Parrot of Doom 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote added. Finetooth (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

** "In the early 18th century, the Six Nations of the Iroquois, headquartered in New York, ruled the Indian tribes of Pennsylvania, including those who lived near what would become Lock Haven." - what are Indians?

To clarify, I linked "Indians" to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom, is your problem with the word "Indians" here and in "Indian paths/trails"? If so is there another term you'd prefer? Would Native Americans in the United States be a better link. perhaps piped as "Native Americans"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly have a problem with Indian over Native American, whatever is most common in the US is fine with me, but it could be confusing for people who haven't heard of these people referred to as Indians, before now. To most people, I would imagine that Indians reside in India. Parrot of Doom 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link and added "Native American" in parentheses after "Indian" to eliminate confusion with the Indians of India. Finetooth (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me. Is Indian how North Americans describe these people? I'm from the UK, over here we'd call them Native Americans, or (slang) Red Indians. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Native Americans is the politically correct term. Indians is the more common term. My wife fits into this group and she says that she's an Indian. Dincher (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, so long as most people are easily able to understand exactly who is being talked about. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

** "Four Indian paths, the Great Island Path, the Great Shamokin Path, the Bald Eagle Creek Path, and the Sinnemahoning Path, crossed the island, and a fifth, Logan's Path, met Bald Eagle Creek Path a few miles upstream near the mouth of Fishing Creek." - what is an Indian path?

I altered the sentence to start, "Four Indian trails... ". Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

** "During the French and Indian War (1754–63), colonial militiamen on the Kittanning Expedition destroyed Indian property on the Great Island and along the West Branch. By 1763, the Indians had abandoned their island villages and other villages in the area" - where did they go? What happened to them? They've been there for thousands of years, more detail is required.

      • It is not simple to identify one tribe. The earliest recorded inhabitants of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley were the Susquehannocks, but they were wiped out by disease and warfare with the Iroquois and the few members left moved west or were assimiliated into other tribes by 1675. After that the Iroquois, who were the nominal rulers of the land but mostly lived in New York to the north, invited tribes displaced by European settlers to move into the region. These included the Lenape (Delaware), Shawnee, and others. They moved west into the Ohio River valley. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, if there isn't room in the prose to describe this adequately, consider writing it as a footnote. I'll leave that to you, if you want to or not. See Dick Turpin for examples of how to insert footnotes into an article. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a note (citation 8) that's almost identical to User:Ruhrfisch's explanation above and sourced it to Indian Paths of Pennsylvania. Finetooth (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, white settlers continued to appropriate land, including land in and near the future site of Lock Haven" - repetition
Changed the second use of "land" to "tracts". Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cleary Campbell, the first white settler in the area, built a log cabin in 1769 near the present site of Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, and by 1773 William Reed had built a cabin surrounded by a stockade and called it Reed's Fort" - reads as though 1769 is a place, not a date, especially as the latter part of the sentence puts the date first. We know Campbell is the first settler, but who or what is William Reed?
Moved "In 1769" to the beginning of the sentence. Added "another settler" to clarify what William Reed refers to. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In response to settler incursions, and encouraged by the British after the start of the American Revolution (1775–83), Indians attacked colonists and their settlements along the West Branch. " - was the start of the American Revolution really eight years long?
No. Those are the dates of the Revolution. I altered the sentence to say "during the American Revolution (1775–83)". Finetooth (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hundreds of people fled along the river to Fort Augusta, about 50 miles (80 km) from Fort Reed, and some did not return for five years." - consider a semicolon instead of 'and'
Yes, it's a bit more striking with the semicolon. I adopted your suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The second Treaty of Fort Stanwix, between the Iroquois and the United States" - what branch of the United States? Presumably the government?
Yes. I believe it's customary to simply name the countries involved in treaties. That the governments of those countries are doing the negotiating is understood. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, is it correct to use Iroquois here, or is there a term that describes their nation, or governance? Parrot of Doom 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this period, it was customary to use "United States" as a group — i.e. "the states that are united" — so "United States" was always the government. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Iroquois" in the second-treaty sentence echoes the more elaborate "Six Nations of the Iroquois" of the sentence that opens the 18th century subsection of the article. The link to Iroquois in that first sentence leads to a more complete explanation of which tribes (nations) joined as one and why, but these details have little bearing on events in Lock Haven. The tribal confederacy (the Six Nations of the Iroquois) acted as a government in these treaty negotiations. Parrot of Doom, would it help to add "tribal confederacy" to the first sentence? Finetooth (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added "tribal confederacy" to the sentence . Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This language is fairly standard, for example Paul A. W. Wallace's book Indians in Pennsylvania, page 165, says "After the Revolutionary War, the United States made peace of a kind with the Indians in a series of treaties: in 1784 at Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois;..." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to the state in 1784" - consider moving the year to a point earlier in the sentence.
Moved the date to the beginning of the sentence. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check back with more, if required. Parrot of Doom 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions, most of which I have adopted, and a few of which I or User:Ruhrfisch have replied to above. Any other suggestions are welcome. Finetooth (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking these. Finetooth (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you from these quarters as well. Finetooth (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - This is my first shot an image reviewing, so please do bear with me. :)
  • File:Lock Haven University Carillon.jpg - This might be considered artwork rather than a practical building. Second opinion appreciated if possible.
    • A Carillon is a musical instrument (albeit not a very portable or common one). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure if this is applicable, but see Commons:Deletion requests/File:BP Bridge facing NW.jpg is about an image of an artistic looking building that was kept as architecture. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It really depends on whether the structure's design is for utilarian purposes or has been artistically intended (visually). Seeing the carillons displayed in their article, it seems the Lock Haven's Carillon is a fairly standard non-descript design, and hence not really intended as an art piece but a structure to house the bells (which are also not uniquely designed). Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Piper Aviation Museum.jpg - Much of the image is overblown. Could this be adjusted for contrast or brightness?
    • Thanks, I cropped it and adjusted the levels with Paint.NET. The sky is white from fog as well as the sun burning through the fog. Is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns about File:Pine Creek Log Raft.jpg. While it's an interesting image for sure, I'm not sure it does much to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic at hand (a raft).
Thanks for reviewing the images, Julian. It's not easy to sort out all of these complications, and the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable often seem unclear to me. In defense of the fair-use claim, I'd say that while log rafts of this sort might be familiar to a North American audience, they might not be to a global audience. The image therefore adds information necessary to the understanding of the text and can't be replaced by words alone. Do you think that argument is sufficient to save the image? Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even sure that such a log raft would be that familiar to most younger people anymore - they just don't grow trees this big or make rafts like this anymore. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of keeping the pic in the article. The size of the raft and the steering device is amazing. Dincher (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Julian here. For one, rafts are pretty common around the world; I see Asians with bamboo (and thick stick) rafts, so log rafts are not so hard to be conceived even by Asians. Although it is said that this image's raft is unique in that it uses "big" logs, there is nothing in the photo to help visualize that sense of scale. Without knowledge of the logs' size, it seems a fairly ordinary crude made log raft. This image would have more sense of fair use in Pennsylvania's logging-specific articles than about the place Lock Haven. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have been BOLD and removed the image, replacing it with the one image the City of Lock Haven uses on its official history web page, also of a log raft, but this time the raft is on the West Branch Susquehanna River going under the old bridge in Lock Haven itself. The image does not have any source or date information - the raft means it has to be 19th or very early 20th century. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks for taking care of that.. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else appears alright.

Best, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Seems to have been worked out. Sorry for the wait. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too, and thanks to Jappalang as well. Finetooth (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 2 January 2010 [149].

Walter Peeler edit

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. Article on an Australian veteran of both World Wars, who was awarded the Victoria Cross in the First and became a prisoner of war to the Japanese in the Second. The article has been passed as both a Good article, and A-Class by WikiProject Military history. Ian Rose was kind enough to preform a few prose tweaks to the article, and EyeSerene a thorough copyedit of which I am immensly grateful. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name

  • No dabs or dead externals (link checker warns about two links, but they're fine).
    • For some reason, the tool just doesn't like links from those sites, even though they work. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text looks good, except...
    • Is "surrounded by a boarder" correct, or was "border" intended?
    • It would be nice if the "Allegiance" in the infobox used {{flag}} instead of {{flagicon}}, and if {{flag}} had customizable text. See, right now those who can't see the flag will read "Australia Commonwealth of Australia", when it should be just "Commonwealth of Australia" (the text only, after an unlinked flag without an alt). {{flag}} would do the trick if the text could be changed to "Commonwealth of Australia".
    • Pointing out Peeler's "large ears" doesn't seem right for a man who won the Victoria Cross (even if he's no longer with us). They don't look that big to me (but it may just be the image size).
      • They do look quite sizable to me in the images, especially the first ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we already know how Peeler looks by the second (or third, or fourth...) image, some of them could probably be made brief by assuming context and calling the man Peeler.
      • Well, he is identified in the actual image captions and it is easier to describe what he is wearing or such in the others so I don't see much of a problem with it. Also, they way I read that quideline, it seems to be against assuming context. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates throughout are consistent Day Month Year. Does the unreferenced external link at the bottom need that access date?
    • It's kind of a habit I picked up on the advice of another editor. I suppose it doesn't really need it, but if the link goes dead it may be helpful in retrevial. *Shrugs* Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to read Army Gas School to get the significance of "On 22 June 1918, Peeler was posted to the Corps Gas School for eight days." I thought it involved cars or petrol! Silly me. :(

--an odd name 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. --an odd name 10:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "dispatching several other German soldiers and emerging unscathed". Do you have to use the word "dispatch" when referring to killing people. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Fixed. EyeSerenetalk 09:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for tweaking that, Eye, and pointing it out MisterBee. :) I was a little concerned about the word, as it is somewhat crude and insensitive in such a context. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A most engaging article which I enjoyed very much. I have a few nitpicks:-
    • Why the quotes around "in the face of the enemy"? It's not a quoted phrase as far as I know; the official citation refers to "most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy." (see here. I would simply remove the quotes, no need to expand the text.
      • This is a rather standard snippet in several Victoria Cross related subjects, and is a habit I have acquired. I think the distinction comes from one of the warrants relating to the VC, and is more to distinguish between it and the George Cross, which is awarded for great gallantry not in the face of the enemy. I will leave them at the moment, but have no strong feelings either way and am willing to remove the quotation marks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "November" in second lead paragraph should have a year: "November 1816"
      • I don't think this is really necessary, as just before this the year of 1916 is present, and just after June 1917 is mentioned, so it would just be repeating the year of 1916 it occured which I think is a little obvious. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Victoria Cross section): Punctuation quibble; mdashes are a rather violent way of inserting an interjection into a sentence. I don't think they are really justified in "a group of 24 men—including Peeler—from the 3rd Pioneer Battalion", and advise their replacement with humble commas.
    • There may be a few more minor points to pick up on, but no serious or obvious issues. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well done article!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A pleasure to read. Well done. ceranthor 20:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 10 July 1907, he wed Kathleen Emma Hewitt;[1] the couple would produce five children.[2] - erm, produce?
    • I originally had "the couple would have five children" but it got tweaked to "produce". Changed back now, though. :) Thanks very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images verifiably in public domain. Taken before 1946, their copyrights would not be renewed by the URAA. Furthermore, possible publishing of these photos during 1923–89 are in Australian books that never registered copyrights in the US; hence, it is very unlikely these photos of Peeler are ever copyrighted in the US. Jappalang (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CO13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference CO16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Dennis et al., Oxford Military History of Australia, p. 530–531
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/January_2010&oldid=938985786"